Percentage of Browsers with Flash

[Michael Wilcox]

I was trying to convince my friend that using Flash for the site navigation
is a very poor idea, mostly becuase there's people who don't have Flash
installed. I was unable to give an exact figure, however. I checked
www.thecounter.com (which for some dumb reason can't be accessed in Mozilla
(Connection Killed!)) but I couldn't find anything. Can you help (or give me
more reasons why this shouldn't be done)?

 

[David Dorward]

I was trying to convince my friend that using Flash for the site
navigation is a very poor idea, mostly becuase there's people who don't
have Flash installed.

Googlebot doesn't understand it either, and most people want Google to be
able to navigate their site.

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

I was trying to convince my friend that using Flash for the site navigation
is a very poor idea, mostly becuase there's people who don't have Flash
installed. I was unable to give an exact figure, however. I checked
www.thecounter.com (which for some dumb reason can't be accessed in Mozilla
(Connection Killed!)) but I couldn't find anything. Can you help (or give me
more reasons why this shouldn't be done)?

Well, I use Mozilla Firebird without Flash, but have IE6 with Flash in
case, so you could say that 50% of people don't have it (depending on
how you word your statistics, that is.)

If he's adamant that he's going to use Flash for navigation let him.
Then threaten to rip his arm off and beat him to death with it unless he
adds an alternative for users without Flash.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I was trying to convince my friend that using Flash for the site navigation
is a very poor idea, mostly becuase there's people who don't have Flash
installed. I was unable to give an exact figure, however. I checked
www.thecounter.com (which for some dumb reason can't be accessed in Mozilla
(Connection Killed!)) but I couldn't find anything. Can you help (or give me
more reasons why this shouldn't be done)?

According to the nice people at Macromedia, 90-95% of visitors have Flash.
I am skeptical of this personally, but no matter, there is still a
compelling reason not to rely on Flash for navigation: Google does not
support Flash.

 

[brucie]

I was trying to convince my friend that using Flash for the site navigation
is a very poor idea,

using anything optional and especially proprietary is a bad idea for
critical site functions. flash needs to add value to a site.

mostly becuase there's people who don't have Flash installed.

macromedia claim flash is on 97% of computers. now you have to guess
how many have it disabled or have uninstalled it. how many only enable
it on a site by site basis. how many wait 5 minutes for flash content
to download only to be told to upgrade to the next flash version, have
a conniption, and leave. etc etc etc.

Hey Flasher, Stop Abusing your Visitors
http://www.flazoom.com/news/user_06202000.shtml
Top 10 Tips For Usable Flash
http://www.ftpconferences.com/thunderlizard/flashtips.asp

 

[Chris Morris]

According to the nice people at Macromedia, 90-95% of visitors have Flash.

Is this to Macromedia's own (flash-heavy) site or a more general
claim, I wonder.

Anyway, even if believed, reversing it gives 5-10% who don't, which is
an unacceptably large number of people for almost all web pages.

 

[m]

This doesn't account for those of us who have it, yet browse with
plugins turned off. It's just too irritating to be browsing
and suddenly have everything stop to load some silly applet or flash
movie. On rare occasion I'll turn it back on for things like a
technical site that uses a plugin to illustrate some physical movement
or the like...but if you're just using it for decoration or (worse)
navigation, a lot of people won't see it.

 

[Lox Info News]

Before I cared about people without the flash plugins and designed with only
html. Then I decided it is us designers who are holding up the innovation by
not embrasing the better medium. If we always produce basic pages then the
visitors would not upgrade. Catch twenty what?

 

[Chris Morris]

Before I cared about people without the flash plugins and designed with only
html. Then I decided it is us designers who are holding up the innovation by
not embrasing the better medium.

Hmm, I think HTML is a better medium than Flash anyway (at least, I've
seen far more good HTML-based sites than good Flash-based sites)

If we always produce basic pages then the visitors would not
upgrade.

Do you think people really upgrade their browser just to view your
site?

For that matter, some of the most interesting (graphically, I mean,
content seems to go without saying) sites I've seen have been
HTML-based rather than Flash based.

Catch twenty what?

Not really. The principle of HTML is graceful degradation, so done
properly, you can use the latest and greatest innovations (or flash,
if you prefer), and *also* give a good experience to users with
browsers more than two years old (most of them).

 

[Whitecrest]

Hmm, I think HTML is a better medium than Flash anyway (at least, I've
seen far more good HTML-based sites than good Flash-based sites)

HTML and Flash are two different animals. You NEED HTML to add flash.
Flash is nothing more than content.

Do you think people really upgrade their browser just to view your
site?

Why do they need to upgrade their browser to use flash?

For that matter, some of the most interesting (graphically, I mean,
content seems to go without saying) sites I've seen have been
HTML-based rather than Flash based.

A great site can be made form Flash or plain-ol-HTML.

 

[Chris Morris]

HTML and Flash are two different animals. You NEED HTML to add flash.

Most web browsers that support flash inline will play the file
standalone if you point them at it.

Flash is nothing more than content.

The problem is it is often less than content. I have no objections to
good Flash content (at least, provided there's some alternative too).

Why do they need to upgrade their browser to use flash?

Depends on the browser. And the version of Flash in use (and I've
seen some Flash 5 files refuse to play on Flash 6, so maybe downgrade
as well as upgrade?)

A great site can be made form Flash or plain-ol-HTML.

Or both, yes, agreed. But the majority of great sites (i.e. ones that
I [1] will return to) are made from HTML alone. This probably isn't
an inherent problem with Flash as much a problem with the (majority of)
people using it.

[1] My personal definition of 'great site'.

 

[Whitecrest]

The problem is it is often less than content. I have no objections to
good Flash content (at least, provided there's some alternative too).

There is crap flash, just like there is crap anything. The crap does
not make the tool evil.

A great site can be made form Flash or plain-ol-HTML.

Or both, yes, agreed. But the majority of great sites (i.e. ones that
I [1] will return to) are made from HTML alone.

That is fine, and I happen to like the flashier ones. It is all a
matter of personal taste. Every site does not have to be for every
person. And the larger audience you are reaching you can allow (see
allow, not need to, it is case by case) you to add more pizzazz.

 

[Zak McGregor]

Hmm, I think HTML is a better medium than Flash anyway (at least, I've
seen far more good HTML-based sites than good Flash-based sites)

That is entirely correct. Moreover, Flash is not any sort of standard,
and as such standards-compliance can't even enter the equation.

Not really. The principle of HTML is graceful degradation, so done
properly, you can use the latest and greatest innovations (or flash, if
you prefer), and *also* give a good experience to users with browsers
more than two years old (most of them).

Indeed.

Ciao

Zak

 

[Zak McGregor]

[snip]

Flash is nothing more than content.

The problem is it is often less than content. I have no objections to
good Flash content (at least, provided there's some alternative too).

Absolutely. And since Macromedia is promoting Flash as a replacement for
HTML (seen the ads "Why design twice" etc?) - with no more than a mere
HTML wrapper onto the Flash content - there is plenty reason to object to
its use entirely.

Depends on the browser. And the version of Flash in use (and I've seen
some Flash 5 files refuse to play on Flash 6, so maybe downgrade as well
as upgrade?)

Most sites I've seen recently implore me to use the Flash 6 player. Now
that 7 is out I'm sure they'll beg for that soon enough.

A great site can be made form Flash or plain-ol-HTML.

Or both, yes, agreed. But the majority of great sites (i.e. ones that I
[1] will return to) are made from HTML alone. This probably isn't an
inherent problem with Flash as much a problem with the (majority of)
people using it.

Flash has *many* inherent problems that can't simply be programmed
around. Its license for one. The fact that it is not any sort of standard
for another. Never mind all the numerous technical issues with it.

Ciao

Zak

 

[Zak McGregor]

There is crap flash, just like there is crap anything. The crap does
not make the tool evil.

No the evil tool makes the result crap. Flash is evil for the simple
reason that Macromedia control its development (ie it is closed) and they
promote its use instead of the open standard HTML for web content
presentation. Not just inconvenient, not just gimmicky, not just bloated,
not just slow, not just irritating but plain wrong-headed - one of the
web's most basic tenets is that of client independence, which cannot be
achieved with a proprietary plugin that requires things like a GUI &
pointer.

A great site can be made form Flash or plain-ol-HTML.

Or both, yes, agreed. But the majority of great sites (i.e. ones that
I [1] will return to) are made from HTML alone.

That is fine, and I happen to like the flashier ones. It is all a
matter of personal taste. Every site does not have to be for every
person. And the larger audience you are reaching you can allow (see
allow, not need to, it is case by case) you to add more pizzazz.

Unfortunately this goes much further than simply what you like or
dislike. This is an idealogical battle for the usefulness of the web -
Macromedia need to change their attitude or we risk losing the web's
usefulness almost entirely, IMHO.

Ciao

Zak

 

[Chris Morris]

Or both, yes, agreed. But the majority of great sites (i.e. ones that I
[1] will return to) are made from HTML alone. This probably isn't an
inherent problem with Flash as much a problem with the (majority of)
people using it.

Flash has *many* inherent problems that can't simply be programmed
around. Its license for one. The fact that it is not any sort of standard
for another.

Neither of those problems is the reason that a far greater percentage
of the flash usage on the web is rubbish compared to the percentage of
HTML usage that's rubbish. It's non-ideal, and on my normal Linux
development platform it makes it impractical for me to read or write
it even if I wanted to, but neither stop it being used on the web.
They just make the provision of fall-back content even more important
[1].

Never mind all the numerous technical issues with it.

The technical ones are the easy ones, I think.
<object title="flash" ...>
<p>Useful content</p>
</object>

Yes, Flash has a number of problems as a display format. However,
these can be worked around or ignored (provided alternatives are
provided and you don't care too much about the ideology). They aren't
the reason that I've yet to see a useful [2] bit of flash content that
couldn't have been duplicated as or more effectively with HTML.

[1] More important than essential? Oh, you know what I mean.
[2] Ignoring the occasional 'useful for procrastination' silly games.

 

[Whitecrest]

Flash has *many* inherent problems that can't simply be programmed
around. Its license for one. The fact that it is not any sort of standard
for another. Never mind all the numerous technical issues with it.

Why are you so flash-a-phobic?

 

[Whitecrest]

No the evil tool makes the result crap....

And you also believe that guns kill people? You are just too
intimidated by flash to give it a real look.

Unfortunately this goes much further than simply what you like or
dislike.

And it goes much further than what you like and dislike.

This is an idealogical battle for the usefulness of the web -
Macromedia need to change their attitude or we risk losing the web's
usefulness almost entirely, IMHO.

Mighty defeatist attitude there. Don't worry, as long as there are
people that think as you do, there will always be sites that you find
useful.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

And you also believe that guns kill people? You are just too
intimidated by flash to give it a real look.

Guns don't kill people. Gun-owners kill people.

Flash doesn't make crap sites. Flash-users make crap sites.

 

[Whitecrest]

Guns don't kill people. Gun-owners kill people.
Flash doesn't make crap sites. Flash-users make crap sites.

Actually flash users watch crap sites, they don't make them. But I
agree most flash developers make crap sites. If you can do something
with out flash, then do it, if you can't then you use flash. Really a
no brainer here. You are putting limitations on your website by not
using flash. I am putting limitations an my website by requiring that
you use it.