Comments on: AJAX vs Flash, round 2, arena: Web2.0, fight!

By: G�khan Besen

G�khan Besen — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:03:38 +0000

I vote for AJAX, Html and CSS. Although I have roots in graphic design, flash was never my favorite application. Thanks to CSS and semantic markup. It�s open source, easy to learn and implement and all you need is notepad. How about flash or flex? I really don�t care about the fancy animations on the user interface EVEN being a designer. Because I believe the user interface should keep silent inorder to let user focus on the information he�s looking for. Can you imagine epinions.com in flex, I simply can�t and I don�t think epinions guys do. Why do you think epinions is not using a single dropdown list to narrow searches? It�s interactive, it saves space and is even animated although it�s a standard HTML object. It�s because the user doesn�t want to think and surely doesn�t care the animation. The information is what he�s looking for so just by single clicking on the hypertext is the unbeatable power of usability. I really don�t see any reason for creating complete flash websites. I use flash for the sake of optimized vector graphics. For example google logo is 8kb jpeg but I can create my logo in flash as low as 350 bytes, not even a kilobyte! I save a precious 7.5 kb compared to Google. Ofcourse Google logo has other issues such as it�s not being a logo The have to use bevel emboss and drop shadow to make it look like a logo and they end up with a 8 kb jpeg, which is just normal for a joke like this.

I have to admit that for a long time I refused to get into HTML, just because tables and the idiot techiques with spacer.gifs etc. But after CSS 2.0 showed up and tables are saved, I got into HTML, semantic markup, CSS etc. and I think that�s what the web is all about.

So learn CSS based layout, semantic markup, combine with ajax and use flash to optimize graphics. That�s what I say.

By: Who knows...aka Michel

Who knows...aka Michel — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:40:47 +0000

Loading time is only important for short sessions, imho. A facile analogy, maybe, but if you’re driving 300km to spend a week somewhere, it’s worth the time spent driving! We’re not at the point of teleporting organisms, nor are we at the point where the web is instantaneous through any medium. But like I stated, loading times are important, if not crucial, in short sessions on the web, not for web apps.

By: dotone

dotone — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:27:37 +0000

Who Knows: I wish you kept at least a name out there.

Good point. No one said a client would run a DB server nor runs on 486, but yea, loading time and files size is greater in Flash since it is compiled and has to have some of the inner workings loaded first, aka components.

By: Who knows...

Who knows... — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:13:45 +0000

Loading times?
We’re talking about webapps, aren’t we?!

Even if it takes a whole minute to load a HUGE flash application, it won’t need any other loading besides round-trips to a server-side script, which are inevitable in any situation.

I really don’t understand how size and loading times are a factor AGAINST Flash applications in most reviews ad debates.

On the processing power, yes, it does require more processing power. But let’s not kid ourselves here, the client using the flash webapp isn’t running a database server, now is it? And, who uses a 486 anymore?

By: dotone

dotone — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:37:22 +0000

Tara,
Sure that’s the case with authoring such technologies, the team environment is ad-hoc with AJaX until now but still it could be manged using versioning.

By: Tara England

Tara England — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:09:32 +0000

Another issue in AJAX vs. Flash, from a team management point of view, is that designers tend to not enjoy working with scripts such as AJAX. On the other hand AJAX allows developers to do some design work in a medium they are familiar with.

This is of course a generalization as there are people who do graphic design and code development, but my experience has been that the majority tend to focus on one field or the other, so your choice of technologies may depend on the staff you have available.

By: NaDm

NaDm — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:07:22 +0000

Flash: Processor hungry animator.
AJAX: simple remote procedure calling router.

They are both like any other tool in the shed… Each tool is better at doing something that the other is capable of doing.

You can use a crescent wrench to hold down a panel, but it would be more intelligent if you used a clamp.

By: Paul Colton

Paul Colton — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:22:00 +0000

My AFLAX library bridges these two worlds together, allowing you to use the best of both all through JavaScript—> http://www.aflax.org

By: dkleehammer

dkleehammer — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:01:08 +0000

You forgot one major thing.. Accessability. In fact, it is one of the top 10 priorities when building websites.

I understand that you sort of mentioned that it would be reliant on the designer at the time of development, but you create a weak argument. There aren’t many flash movies that contain scalable text.

What about the fact that in a window with flash, if the movie is larger than the viewport, you have to scroll to see everything. Proper layout of the css (still talking * vs Flash here) will not go off the edge of the screen. Compliancy.

By: dotone

dotone — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:25:08 +0000

João Fernandes,
Thanks for your comment, I agree with you on the bottom line which is building better apps no matter what we use. I use both AJaX and Flash and I could be on Flash side more if you wanted to know, but hey AJax is neat too; did you see the score board at the end? .

DG,

Intresting!

lulu,

That’s how the judges wanted it to be.

A Developer,

I beleive AJaX is not gaining on Flash neither the other way around.