APPLE iPAD doesn’t support Flash. Can that be a deterrent for the millions of customers who can’t wait to see the device in their hands? This is the question that stirs a war between html and flash, seeking an answer whether the dependence on Adobe’s ubiquitous Flash can be done away with better option.
The most obvious disadvantage of Flash is the cost of the software. Flash retails for up to $400. In contrast, HTML can be composed in a text editor such as Notepad, which ships with the Windows operating system. In effect, a web developer can write a website for free using HTML.
While Adobe’s Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch has slammed Apple's reluctance to include Flash on its "magical device", iPad enthusiasts refuse to admit that this will cripple the Web experience at all.
According to writer Stephen Shankland, a collection of new technologies--including a rejuvenated HTML standard used to write Web pages--are aiming to reproduce some of what Flash offers.
Also according to sources at Opera Software, HTML and the other technologies inevitably will replace Flash and these are in fact "very close" to reproducing Flash abilities.
HTML (and CSS) is best suited to content-based sites whereas Flash is best used for animated multi-media demonstrations. Both have their place. And of course, sites need not be one thing or the other; Flash is often put to good use as an element within an HTML page.
The idea of having a Flash-based News website is ludicrous. It would be unnecessarily complex for such text-based content. Likewise, HTML may not be considered as adequate for promotional sites for music artists for example, where the delivery of multi-media content such as audio or video in a visually engaging, interactive interface is paramount.
Flash achieves resolution and cross-browser independency due to rescalable vector graphics. HTML web design needs to factor both different resolution sizes and browser types, as different web browsers interpret HTML and CSS differently. For example, Firefox and Internet Explorer do not agree on the size of a pixel.
The modern browsing audience no longer expects only to be informed: they also expect to be entertained. Flash-powered websites can achieve that wow-factor through interactive animations of a type that leaves traditional HTML-driven websites looking primitive by comparison.
With the advent of Adobe Flash, website designers found a new development platform that could produce a more visually rich and interactive browsing experience than the traditional HTML and CSS combination could provide. But using
Flash for web design in its early versions had its disadvantages.
Conventional wisdom held that Flash websites could not have their content crawled by search engines. The argument was, what was the point in having a gloriously visual interactive website if nobody could find it? Furthermore, Flash sites were notoriously difficult and time-consuming to update on a regular basis, particularly by a person not trained in the Flash platform.
But Flash has come a long way since it was first distributed by Macromedia. Do the original disadvantages of Flash websites still make HTML the best choice for creating websites?
Since every web browser in the world is designed to interpret HTML code and display web pages, building a site using strictly HTML ensures every web surfer will be able to view the site. Flash, on the other hand, requires users to have the Flash Player, which is a browser plug-in, installed on their computer in order to properly display the website.
In addition, as Flash matures there are different versions of the Flash Player out there, further diminishing the chances that every visitor will be able to view the website.
Source: Merinews.com
