Xamlon recently started promoting AFLAX as an alternative to Jesse Garrett's AJAX.
AJAX is a label for Web apps that use HTML, asynchronous Javascript, and XML. AFLAX says hey, why not use Macromedia Flash instead? Paul Colton of Xamlon calls Flash "the world's most ubiquitous Internet platform".
It must be April 1st.
Let's compare AJAX and AFLAX:
AJAX: based on Open Standards; runs in browsers from multiple vendors; runs on desktop; mature mobile support; has a great Open Source implementation.
AFLAX: Uses Macromedia Flash, a propietary closed runtime from a single vendor; no Open Source implementation; weak mobile phone support; sounds like an insurance company.
Flash ubiquitous? Yes, its installed on lots of desktops. However, Flash support on other devices is poor. My Symbian phone runs AJAX today. But no Flash yet. Nor is it likely that the Mobile version of Flash will be compatible with the desktop version anytime soon.
Flash a platform? In my experience, 90% of Flash content consists of banner ads. What kind of platform is that? Flash banner ads have become so invasive that I now actively block Flash content. I used to love Flash, but these days I've reluctantly given it up. Like other developers, I've written my Dear Flash letter. I prefer to see a broken-image icon than a bad animation with no stop button.
Then there is the Flash accessibility black hole. If you slide your mouse over a Flash movie, suddenly your mouse wheel stops working and all your keyboard shortcuts change.
Usability? One of the best things about the Web is the Back button. But the Flash Rich UI initiative breaks the browser's back button. Of course, some AJAX applications do too. However, in AJAX you can at least address the browser's Back button through Javascript. In Flash, addressing the back button requires some serious rocket science.
The problem is that Flash has an "I own the screen, I own the browser, I own the user interaction" philosophy. However, in practice Flash movies are nearly always share space with an HTML page that contains other content. Getting Flash to communicate with other controls on the web page is hard.
Colton compares Flash to .NET, saying "Because Flash, unlike .NET applications, can run on any device, this opens up the development of applications for different platforms and form factors". As of today, Microsoft's .NET cross-device story rivals Macromedia's. Microsoft, not Macromedia, is the second runner in the smartphone category, and their smartphones run .NET. There is also a healthy Open Source .NET effort called Mono, enabling a lot of .NET code to run on open source platforms.
What would it take to get me to change my mind on Flash? Create a Flash event model which plays well with other HTML content on the page, e.g. not grabbing the mouse wheel when there is nothing to scroll. Make the tab key navigate seamlessly between HTML controls and controls in multiple Flash movies. Use a shared undo stack between Flash and the Browser (Xamlon text controls do not seem to have undo/redo yet). Provide bi-directional calls between ActionScript and JavaScript on all the major browsers. Deliver Flash MX 2004 on my phone this year. Add hardware-assisted 3D features. Offer real rich text. Unleash a viable open-source runtime. If Macromedia moves in this direction, maybe I'd consider Flash again.
In my twenty years as a UI developer, I view Flash as one of the biggest UI technology disappointments. The other is Java.
Xamlon Out to Connect Flash to .NET
Ajax vs AFLax, Flash Forward and FITS
Fabio | April 4, 2005 12:52 PM
You must, FIRST, know about you're talking. Flash *is* supported on mobile phones.
jonmeyer | April 4, 2005 03:44 PM
Thanks for the comment, Fabio. In fact, I did do some research.
As of April 2005, Flash is not bundled with any mobile phones available in the US. (Please tell me if this is wrong). The Flash Lite player is available on a reasonable number of handsets, but only to developers, and at a charge.
Nokia and Samsung both licensed Flash Lite earlier this year, but it is not shipping here yet.
According to Macromedia, 25 million devices (other than desktops) are running Flash today (here). That's less than 2% of the 1.5 billion mobile phones out there. As a comparison, Sun says Java has shipped on 579 million mobile devices, over 30%.
Flash Lite is a very different beast from Flash 7. Last time I checked, it was using ActionScript 1.0 and Flash 4 syntax. I expect it will be several years before my ActionScript 2.0 components will run on my mobile.
peter hunt | April 10, 2005 05:12 PM
AJAX: based on Open Standards;
Like XMLHttpRequest? There's no standard there...
jonmeyer | April 11, 2005 12:09 AM
Good point. It is already appearing in drafts, including Web Applications 1.0.
Flash Fan | May 10, 2005 11:25 AM
Jon, why is it that Flash bashers like you can't see the wood for the tree's?
Is the GIF format a scourge on society because all banner ad's were originally created with it? Of course not, so please don't show your ignorance by confusing the medium with the content.
Broad sweeping,unfounded statements such as "In my experience, 90% of Flash content consists of banner ads" are simply not true? (unless you work in the rich media advertising development field).
You mention in your post that "there is the Flash accessibility black hole...". A simple search on Google using the "Flash+mouse scroll" keywords. reveals a plethora of info on the Flash TextField.mouseWheelEnabled property which addresses your perceived "accessibility black hole" issue.
Your following statement relating to usability in regards to the back button in Flash unfortunately is also flawed. When yet another search on Google using "Flash+back button" shows that are indeed several methods of getting the two to play fairly together. And guess what? They use JavaScript...just like AJAX.
Oh and BTW. Independent global provider of marketing information on consumer purchasing - NPD Online recently conducted an online survey which results showed that the Macromedia Flash Player was installed on 96% of internet enabled PC's.
" Flash appears to want to be isolated in its own box." - errrr yes that would be called the Flash Player...just like in Java that would be the Applet....or in the case of AJAX that would be the web browser. Which I should hasten to mention clearly shows one of AJAX's limitations (i.e not being able to exist outside the browser).
Please do us all a favour and stop pretending you know anything about Flash because you're kind of embarrassing yourself by demonstrating that you don't really have a clue.
Regarding your Flash wish list...
- "Offer real rich text" - Have a look at Saffron - one of the few publicly stated features of the next release of Flash.
- "Deliver Flash MX 2004 on my phone this year" - Speak to Nokia US about when you and your fellow Americans can expect one of the new 60 series to be at a store near you. Or better still if you're that keen to get a Flash enabled phone how about buying one off the internet like the other mobile Flash developers out there.
You may also want to take a look over at Christian Cantrell's blog where he's recently been showing off just how well Flash & AJAX integrate together with his newly developed MXNA Feeds.
jonmeyer | May 11, 2005 01:12 AM
Hi Flash Fan,
Have you considered a job at Macromedia?
Broad sweeping,unfounded statements such as 'In my experience, 90% of Flash content consists of banner ads' are simply not true.
When did my experience become broad, sweeping, unfounded and not true? And should I take the blue pill or the red pill to fix this?
You mention GIF. The big difference between Flash and GIF is that, with GIF, its very easy to turn animations off so that you see a still image instead. Unfortunately, Flash has no user preference to start movies in "pause" mode. If it did, I might become a Flash fan again.
Macromedia's claimed 96% installation level (webstats show lower levels) does not mean people choose to install the Flash player to view Flash content, or that people want to see Flash content.
In IE, the dominant browser, if you don't install the Flash player, you are continually bugged with a popup dialog box telling you that Flash is required. Since there is no "Don't show me this again" option, people like my parents (who dislike animated web pages) end up installing Flash out of attrition.
Regarding Flash Mobile, once again I'll point out that "Deliver Flash MX 2004" is different from "Deliver Flash Lite". Flash Lite doesn't support Flash 6 or Flash 7 content.
Saffron means better font rendering, not rich text.
Yes, I agree that it is possible to get the Back button to work with Flash.
The problem with the mouse wheel in Flash today is not in getting events into Flash, but rather in selectively telling Flash not to get events.
Stefan Wessels | July 12, 2005 08:29 AM
Hi!
Just an update, there will be a new version of the Flash Lite player coming out within the next 8-12 months. This will be based on Flash 7+, so Actionscript 2.0 wil be supported as well as many other features that have been lacking.
I personally don't care what platform is used, I do believe that Flash will become a dominant platfrom for mobile. First of all, in Japan, there are over 20 million (if not more) phones with Flash Lite 1.1 running on them - the network model is different, but going by the usual trends, we will start moving that way soon.
The most important thing that people seem to forget is the development environment. Flash crosses that gap between programmers and designers. I know of many talented designers that never would have thought about creating content for phones, until the heard they that they could re-purpose most of their existing content. The key to Macromedia's success hasn't been just in the technology they have created, but they have created a great development environment where programmers and designers are comfortable.
jonmeyer | July 13, 2005 12:47 AM
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for the update. I'm glad to hear that Flash 7+ and ActionScript 2 will be supported on phones.
I agree that Flash has a better development environment than any XHTML/CSS solution. (See e.g. this post).
However I'm not convinced that Flash offers a better customer experience. At the end of the day, this is what companies care about most - which is why (in my opinion) more and more sites are moving away from Flash and towards CSS/XHTML/DHTML.