iPad Why Flash Is Fundamentally Flawed On Touchscreen Devices

[petermillard]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So how is Youtube going to work on an iPad?

Maybe using the Youtube app that works so well on the iPhone and iPod Touch??

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Why do you dislike Flash for menus?

Flash has many interesting uses where it can be utilized to enhance user experience, but *basic navigation of sites* is not one of those uses.

- not all the people have Flash installed on their machines. There are Linux and FreeBSD users, there are various phones, net appliances, there are people working at government institutions or large corporations that are not allowed to install flash.
- even if user does have Flash installed he might not have the latest and greatest version. He might be using an obsolete system with limited resources for example
- even if user does have Flash installed and has appropriate version he might opt to have a "noscript" of "flashblock" plugins switched on in order to avoid all those atrocious jumping, popping, flashing (pun intended), bloody advertisements
- there are users that can not see properly and they need to use screen readers or other tools to be able to access the net. Even a simple zoom tool can render that beautiful flash menu almost unusable for visually impaired visitor
- there are users that live in regions where the only Internet connection is modem or other very expensive and/or slow medium. Flash files are usually magnitude bigger than a simple menu implemented in HTML. Just imagine what will heavy use of bloated flash animations do to the already overloaded AT&T mobile connection in USA. (I am looking at you, iPhone users)
- You can not save flash page. You can not copy and paste a phone number or an address from a flash animation (well, *you* might be able to use some hack to save animation but my mom or my wife or Joe SixPack are not able to do that)
- flash menus often do not work properly on certain combination of browser / operating system / plugin version or when you use magnification on the page (Ctrl and Plus sign on numerical keyboard in Firefox). There are big name sites where the menu appears under the graphics on the page. Even on this Windows XP computer with Firefox browser. Like Sonystyle.com for example.
- The users are IMPATIENT. I am impatient. When I visit a site I usually want to get some info. And when I do not find what I want quickly I look for another site that might have the info. I do not usually visit sites to marvel at complicated menu animations or look at "loading menu..." or even worse "loading intro ..." prompt. And if you include some nice music into your intro, I might never ever come back ...

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by kacir

Flash has many interesting uses where it can be utilized to enhance user experience, but *basic navigation of sites* is not one of those uses. ...

Some valid points, but as I said, it depends what the site is, what its purpose is, and who the target audience is. There are always trade-offs, and often those with primitive equipment, or modem users, are not part of the targeted segment.

Plenty of large (and not so large) company sites use Flash for navigation, and the target audience doesn't have issues with it. I quite like some of them, and I view them in OS X, which technically has relatively poor performance with Flash.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Some valid points, but as I said, it depends what the site is, what its purpose is, and who the target audience is. There are always trade-offs, and often those with primitive equipment, or modem users, are not part of the targeted segment.

Plenty of large (and not so large) company sites use Flash for navigation, and the target audience doesn't have issues with it. I quite like some of them, and I view them in OS X, which technically has relatively poor performance with Flash.

Take the Astak website for example. There is a flash menu that incorporates some nasty annoying animation. It makes me want to then go to someone else and buy a reader there and NOT recommended their product to anyone else even if it is a perfect fit.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Some valid points, but as I said, it depends what the site is, what its purpose is, and who the target audience is. There are always trade-offs, and often those with primitive equipment, or modem users, are not part of the targeted segment.

Yep. It's not 1995 anymore. I'm personally much more likely to come back to sites that have nice, flashy (no pun intended) layouts, menus etc.

I'm not stuck on dial up anymore, which made me prefer simple sites of mainly text.

It varies by the type of site of course, but most sites I visit have embedded videos (sports sites, news sites, movie sites) etc. and flashy layouts--think espn.com etc.

[nikkie]

Originally Posted by petermillard

Maybe using the Youtube app that works so well on the iPhone and iPod Touch??

The youtube app on the iPhone isn't using flash. It is streaming the movies directly in a format the iPhone can read.

[petermillard]

Originally Posted by nikkie

The youtube app on the iPhone isn't using flash. It is streaming the movies directly in a format the iPhone can read.

Err, yeah, that was kind of my point... i.e. not all streaming video needs Flash - there are options and alternatives if folks want their content to be seen on an iPad/iPhone OS device.

[dmaul1114]

Yep, as a end user, I can get around the lack of flash if the sites I watch a lot of video on get all the content I watch available in streaming formats that don't require flash.

I have no loyalty to Flash, I just want any tablet I buy to be able to watch streaming video on the sites I frequent. I don't care if that means the tablet having Flash, or the sites changing the way the do the streaming. I just care about having access to the content I watch.

[Sonist]

Also, keep in mind that Flash is soooo much more than video.

A large number of entertainment and sports sites are almost entirely in Flash, as well as many fashion and arts sites. Flash is just everywhere.

And then you have the fun and creative sites, like this one: http://jimcarrey.com/

Nope, you can't see any of them on your iPad, but you can on your Android.... It's really as stupid of a decision as the initial lack of Search and Cut/Paste on the iPhone.

[dmaul1114]

True. I was just saying I could without those sites on a Tablet, as I wouldn't do much web browsing on it anyway as I spend to much time on forums, e-mail etc. so I'm better off with my laptop.

But I would watch video on it most likely, so I do care about flash on that front--at least until the video sites I use switch to something else.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

... But I would watch video on it most likely, so I do care about flash on that front--at least until the video sites I use switch to something else.

BTW, Flash now supports H.264 (the same proprietary video codec Apple is using and pushing on the iPhone), including hardware acceleration.

[Robert Minneman]

This all assumes that the iPad will be "THE" touch pad leader in the industry.

Quite frankly I find it hard to believe that it will.

This is a subject near and dear to me and one I've put a LOT of thought into, since way back into the early 90's when the first "touch screen" CRT's just started coming down in price and at the same time the LCD prices were just barely edging downwards.

It has been a "why not" kind of subject for me? I'm happy to see that a major player in the industry has come out with a commercially viable touchpad, but I truly believe the iPad will become much like Mac computers:

Much beloved by a small group of people, elitist in attitude, but when it comes to general use for the common man, it'll be the WIntel machines that truly own the market.

As soon as HP/Microsoft, or Dell, or Intel come out with their version of the touchpad, and as long as they're priced competitively, you're going to see the iPad relegated to the long time Apple users. The rest of us will use something else.

The iPad has some serious "missing" features that make it a non-starter: lack of removable media (SDRAM cards, a frickin' STANDARD USB port), compliant file system, complete blue tooth support, etc., seriously limits what can be done with it.

Anyway, I think this isn't all that moot. Apple's psycopathic tendancies toward proprietary implementations of their hardware will keep supply low even in spite of any actual demand anyway.

Flash will live on and on causing plenty of issues for us as the standard home technology platform slowly moves from "desktop" to "touch-top"...

[Penforhire]

Interesting reason noted in the original post. Mouse hovering is important to many sites. But I see an easy workaround. A multi-touch device could be set to always hover the mouse if two fingers are pressed on the screen (say any finger from your off-hand).

Heck, I already do something similar frequently with a regular keyboard and mouse -- Control & Left mouse drag to copy something in many Microsoft applications. Or Shift & Left mouse drag to "pan" in Adobe Photoshop.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

As soon as HP/Microsoft, or Dell, or Intel come out with their version of the touchpad, and as long as they're priced competitively, you're going to see the iPad relegated to the long time Apple users. The rest of us will use something else.

We'll see. I thought that would happen with touch screen phones a year or so after the iPhone came out. But it really hasn't. Other phones haven't really matched it and definitely haven't caught it in sales. Blackberry is still hugely successful because it was the market leader before iPhone.

But the Palm Pre didn't do so hot, Android phones from what I've read are selling ok but aren't really eating into iPhone sales yet.


But in any case, I'm very anxious to see what MS, Dell etc. put out, as I imagine some of them will be better suited for business and academic work use, which is my need for a tablet.

I just hope their wise enough to not make these tablet PCs running a stripped down version of Windows 7 etc. Those things have failed repeatedly.

Pretty much everyone who would want a tablet device has a laptop or two, and probably a desktop. Most of us don't need another computing device, but rather want a tablet for specific function that that tablet form factor is better suited for--reading, reading and marking up documents, using as a note pad in meetings, light web browsing that requires minimal text entry, watching videos etc.

No need for a full on OS for that stuff. Just a nice slick, easy to use, touch based OS.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

We'll see. I thought that would happen with touch screen phones a year or so after the iPhone came out. But it really hasn't. Other phones haven't really matched it and definitely haven't caught it in sales. Blackberry is still hugely successful because it was the market leader before iPhone.

But the Palm Pre didn't do so hot, Android phones from what I've read are selling ok but aren't really eating into iPhone sales yet.


But in any case, I'm very anxious to see what MS, Dell etc. put out, as I imagine some of them will be better suited for business and academic work use, which is my need for a tablet.

I just hope their wise enough to not make these tablet PCs running a stripped down version of Windows 7 etc. Those things have failed repeatedly.

Pretty much everyone who would want a tablet device has a laptop or two, and probably a desktop. Most of us don't need another computing device, but rather want a tablet for specific function that that tablet form factor is better suited for--reading, reading and marking up documents, using as a note pad in meetings, light web browsing that requires minimal text entry, watching videos etc.

No need for a full on OS for that stuff. Just a nice slick, easy to use, touch based OS.

It seems that you are contradicting yourself. Initially you say that they shouldn't run a stripped down version of the OS and then at the end, you say that a tablet doesn't need a full OS.