| >As a developer: >* Because I can use any editor I like - free, open-source, paid, whatever. You can write .as files in any editor and compile via the command line... >* Because I can build and use tools which are themselves built on top of the standards, and choose which tools I want (SASS, LESS, >CoffeeScript, etc). There was a very active OS community, lots of frameworks, tools and libs. >* Because I can build responsive websites that work on screen sizes from watches to 60" TV screens. I'll give you watches, but responsive design is a concept that can be carried out in any language. Flash apps actually responded quite well to screen resizing, more so than the table layout HTML that was the alternative for most of it's life. >As IT support:
* Because my users don't have to frequently upgrade a bit of software which most of the time offered little benefit, but big security risks. Could make the same argument for most software at the time, even now most browser and OS updates are security based. >As a user:
* Because I can use just about any browser I like, and (usually, at least) get at least some experience of the website more than "Sorry, you don't have Flash installed, so bugger off." This is a good point, but these days people are only developing for <your browser> version x and above. So no real change. >* Because the user experience has become a lot more consistent. Weird navigation controls have become outliers rather than standard. The same people that designed flash websites are now designing HTML ones, the technology hasn't dictated that change, I expect it is down to the prevalence of UX. >I have no ideological opposition to Flash, more to the way it was used. While Flash was popular, the progress of open standards was slow because it was less urgent. Indeed, but the progress of Flash was very fast as it didn't need a commity, without it the web would likley be very far behind. |