Will the flash button gracefully degrade if I have an obsolete version of Flash Player, or I use a flash blocker? Can an African schoolkid see it on their OLPC XO? Can a blind person read it with their screen reader or braille terminal? Can I select it using a keyboard or an accessible input device? Can I restyle it in the browser, so it's clear enough for my grandma to read through her cataracts and big enough for her to click on despite her arthritis?
Every time you use Flash, you're insulting the dignity of the elderly, the disabled and any number of others. You're saying to users "if you're not a healthy young person on a modern computer with a fast connection, you're a second-class citizen". We shouldn't tolerate it, and in many countries the law doesn't allow us to.
HTML works because it works for everyone, not just a fortunate few. This isn't about technology, it's a civil rights issue. No matter how hard Adobe try, Flash accessibility is massively inferior to HTML accessibility. They should be ashamed that they took so long to even begin to address the needs of disabled users and developers using their products should be ashamed for not using the open, standards-compliant, accessible alternative.
You can do that in HTML5. You could use CSS3 with animated gifs/pngs --- or go straight to the canvas. Either way would get it done. I'd vote for using canvas.
I'll leave it to someone else to implement. I've got real applications to build today...
Annoying? Poor usability? It looks like a button, reacts on mouseovers, and would totally fit in some game's website. Besides, it is not the point here.
My thoughts too. While that might be a silly button to have for many sites, it looks like something I've seen in more than one video game menu. So, it's not without merit.
I think psadauskas' point was that a shiny button isn't a good benchmark for a flash vs. html5 comparison. Or at least that they don't think that shiny buttons make a lot of sense.
People who complain the button is ugly seem to be missing the point. iF there is something that flash can do that HTML5 and the canvas can't do then it's a bridge to be crossed.
While this might be a bad example it would be worth wile to have a list of what flash can do that HTML5 can not yet. The we can talk about if it is or is not worth implementing.
I take it this means you weren't around for The Dark Ages? The time when animated GIFs ran amuck, standards were wept for acceptance, and the kingdom of Geocities was strong?
I was around for The Dark Ages for sure, and even including everything there, this button is worse. I'd even prefer a Java applet mirror reflection button to this thing.
I think the "gracefully" part is misleading. This could be done with Javascript and a simple CSS class added to the <button> is both graceful and degrades gracefully. But if we're comparing apples-to-apples, what's graceful about the Flash solution - opening one (possible more - Photoshop, etc) programs, learning a proprietary language (Actionscript) and exporting a binary that's not accessible to users or search engines, etc...
From stackoverflow.com where some misguided fool wants to draw his page background with canvas:
… Webkit-based browsers do allow you to use a element in the CSS background property. Just give the canvas an id, then use "body { background:url(#mycanvas); }" in your CSS.
Sure, that isn't in the HTML5 standard per se, but since there is no HTML5 standard we can pretend it is.
steveklabnik points out in this thread an example of someone doing it, http://mobdb.com/reddit/button.html , but they use absolute positioning to overlay the button and canvas and will surely go mad if they try to use it for real.
I suppose, with this newfound CSS knowledge I will now have to change my home page background to a hilbert curve.
(Why are there so many posts here without a comment section? Now to the topic at hand...)
Why?
That's my first question. Why? As in why do I need this button? As in why do I have to do this in HTML 5?
HTML 5 doesn't have to replace Flash. Flash may be great for some devices, and the computers of today can do Flash.
Why does this argument always end up with "But I can do this wildly unnecessary thing in Flash! I should be able to make something unequally unnecessary in HTML 5".
Perhaps HTML 5 can't do the unnecessary. Perhaps that's all the more reason to go to HTML 5.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci
He should have cleaned his room before taking a picture in it. If the debate was so tiresome between flash/html 5, why add fuel to the fire?
I still dont see the need to justify your purchase/platform/technology. build things that your consumers like, use VB script, Cobol, or powerbuilder for all I care- just make it cool.
Every time you use Flash, you're insulting the dignity of the elderly, the disabled and any number of others. You're saying to users "if you're not a healthy young person on a modern computer with a fast connection, you're a second-class citizen". We shouldn't tolerate it, and in many countries the law doesn't allow us to.
HTML works because it works for everyone, not just a fortunate few. This isn't about technology, it's a civil rights issue. No matter how hard Adobe try, Flash accessibility is massively inferior to HTML accessibility. They should be ashamed that they took so long to even begin to address the needs of disabled users and developers using their products should be ashamed for not using the open, standards-compliant, accessible alternative.