Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Ricky, May 4, 2009.
Not too shabby - wish they had it coded to extract the audio from the video and allow you to download.
It's nice but I'd rather just go to YouTube since that's where most of the songs are taken from anyways.
Wait, are they all from YouTube?
looks like it at the moment
but they can *easily add more websites.
looks really nice.
i like it better
I think this is a better example of things that don't need to be flash but are. Flash brings absolutely nothing of value, I get some pretty animations that lag like a mofo and make me have insane load times. Sure it's pretty, but it totally ignores the user's experience.
Saying you have insane load times with flash is not valid. Flash is a far superior platform for graphics/animations/video for web than any other. If you have bad load times then its the developer that you have an issue with, not the platform.
That being said, yes, that site does not need flash other than the use of the players.
I totally agree, flash is the best platform for graphics/animation etc. In a perfect world they would load perfectly for everyone, but at this point we aren't remotely close to reality. The decision to use some shaky needless flash over good old HTML/CSS seems poor to me.
welcome to WML, are you an AE?
I'm new to OT, urbandictionary tells me AE = Alter Ego. Assuming that's what you mean, no I am not. Thanks for the welcome
Well shit, say goodbye to 2 hours a day from this point forward.
Less work to get a song playing on justheartit.
If they spend a bit more time with it they can make it
An argument I would have made a number of years ago.
Edit: Or on mobile apps.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, I think this is still true for today.
Flash is fine for video and the like, but it shouldn't function as layout. To give an extreme example try loading this piece of crap: http://ingoodhands.com/. Sure if they had just done an html/css page they couldn't have used all those fancy animations, but at least then the user could actually use the page. Seriously it's literally unusable unless you go up and make a sandwich while it waits to load.
issue is not flash, its the designer using the tool incorrectly.
people can bog the shit out of css, gifs, html, php etc, but, flash gets a bad name.
You are correct, it "shouldnt" be used as a layout, or entire site, but, when done correctly, it brings an entire new level to multimedia content that is otherwise not available in any other platform.
The ability of flash/flex to communicate with applications, backends, UI's etc is amazing, but, too many people are turned away from flash because of existing stigmas with bad designers.
Remember this thread...
It was a call out to PHP designers to develop a front end for one of my applications. I needed to give my developer a break and tried to outsource some existing deliverables..
He did the entire project in 1 week(after work)in flash. Including ftp uploading, access controls, security, file preview etc.
I couldnt imagine how much it would have cost to develop in another platform.
Flash is amazing and credit should be given where credit is due. There is no other multi-media platform that has brought more media to the internet than it, ever or ever will.
Someone also paid dearly for that.
The absolute staple of business is "the customer is always right".
99 out of the top 100 websites in the world use flash and the reason is not because their designers said "hey, lets do this fancy gay ass animation as an intro".
Its entirely because some faggot in marketing who writes the checks said "i want a faggot ass intro so gay that it takes 30-45 seconds to load but dammit, it has a ton of flashy shit and yeah, use that Adoobie Flash Stuff, yeah, thats the shit".
I'm not in the mood to debate about something retarded and obvious to the fact that the web has progressed to it and users simply like it. Flash elements do in fact provide value to a website, depending on the industry or target audience of a website. You can't just go and make claims like "It brings nothing of value". You just have to know when to use it, how to use it, and use it the right way. If you do in fact use it the right way, you can effectively build a usable solution.
I didn't mean flash brings nothing of value ever, obviously without it video on the web as we know it wouldn't exist. I meant on the website this thread is about it does nothing for me, aside loading the video from youtube.
Of course flash also has strong useful purposes besides video. I think in the vast majority of cases it is implemented poorly. I see it a bit like animated gifs in the 90's, sure animated gifs have legitimate purposes but most people didn't know what they were and took it way to far.
That's just my opinion though.
There were actually other ways of streaming video before flash-based video streaming came along. So, saying it wouldn't exist is a pretty bold claim.
I'm not sure what to say about everything else... Especially the animated gifs comparison.
Site doesn't load for me. Sticks at 10% every time.
Of course there are other ways to do it, but flash is generally the most used/best option today.
Silverlight and its ties to .net make it pretty powerful.
Flash and Northcode (ThirdParty API) pretty much equals Silverlight features.
I am sure that over the next few years MS will spew propoganda everywhere trying to get devs to switch to Silverlight just as they spewed shit trying to get admins to switch to server from linux.