This week, Robert Scoble hits a badly implemented Flash site (without alternative content) and generalizes from this one experience that he will not use Flash: Why I don't use Flash.
The A bad implementation does not a bad technology make article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
This is akin to watching Battlefield Earth and concluding that film is a terrible medium because you just sat through a really, really, really crappy one.
Of course this is a non sequitur; a classic example of a post-hoc fallacy: "This implementation of a certain technology is bad, therefore this technology is bad." It is a common error that the intellectually lazy are prone to commit and Flash has historically been at the receiving end of such arguments. Part of the attraction of making such statements, where the conclusion does not follow from the premise, is that they are very easy to make. Mike Chambers demonstrates this in his retort, Why I don't use Windows Media Video, wherein he purposefully generates a similar non sequitur regarding Windows Media Video before concluding:
Lesson: always recognize poor implementations of technology, before you make sweeping generalizations about a technology based on that implementation. (This applies to pretty much any technology).
I also aired my thoughts on Robert's post in this comment on his blog so I won't repeat what I said there, here. (It was cool to see that another commenter on the post had mentioned my interview on the Boagworld podcast from a few weeks ago -- nice to see that people are finding it useful!)
In conclusion, making sweeping statements about a certain technology -- be it Flash, Ajax or plain old HTML -- based on a single bad implementation does not hold any value and adds nothing to the knowledge pool apart from noise. I hope we can all move beyond such lazy thinking and realize that, regardless of the technologies we use, most of us share the desire to create web sites and applications that are easy (dare I say, fun) to develop, easy (dare I say, fun) to use, and successful. Although certain technologies may make the process easier or harder (I strongly believe that Flash falls into the easier category for most things, like the creation of cross-platform applications, especially with the release of Flex 2 and Flex Builder 2), and although certain things may not be possible with every technology (for example, Flash has alpha channel video, which Ajax doesn't), there will ultimately be implementations in any technology that run the gamut from absolutely horrible to awe-inspiring, with many shades of gray in between.
The A bad implementation does not a bad technology make article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
On the plus side, I think it’s good to recognize patterns in the sweeping generalizations. To understand “why” they are being made, and not just copy-catted in discussions, allows us to better understand how to make things better.
For example, people commonly cannot find good Flash talent? Why? What does that signify? Is it corroborated enough to really hold water as a generalization? If so, does it stand to the test of time? If so, and it’s valid, what do we do about it and when.
Flash is too hard for application developers. RIA’s are worth getting application developers involved. Lower the barriers of entry. Make Flex for their workflow.
There are a lot of other ones that are the reverse, like you mention; sweeping generalizations. I think, however, that if you cannot avoid them, you can learn from those public responses, and in any good PR campaign, attack them at the get-go. For example, Adobe arming people with a plethora of resources, both for learning and for hard, simple, non-marketing price information to quell confusion.
Education / re-education is what can be done. I don’t like it either, and I don’t think we’ll fix people spending time on their blog ranting about something they could of done had they just adjusted the URL, made 2 clicks, and read for 30 seconds. I do think, however, these generalizations are good to read if they keep cropping up, identifying the problem, and solving it.
Anyway, I agree Aral, keep fighting the good fight.
[...] Or at least that appears (in my opinion) to be the thinking behind Robert Scoble’s latest post titled: “Why I don’t use Flash“. Several people have commented about this much more eloquently then I can (see Aral Balkan, and Mike Chambers ) so I’ll make this short. [...]
Scoble vs. Flash – Scoble wins, Flash does not lose……
First of all, I’m sure regular readers of my blog will want to know what a ‘Scoble’ is. He is an overrated ex-Microsoft blogger, now in podcasting business. I visited his blog a couple of times in the past because…
He sounds fairly full of it, and himself.
Yes, I read the post, and apparently a lot of other folks did too. Prior to reading it, I had no idea who this Scoble chap was – but now I’m tempted to return and see if he has responded. Perhaps therein lies the reason behind making the post, to stir up attention. I mean, can you draw readers by saying ‘flash is great’ when everyone knows that already? It’s the tabloid-factor I suppose. A sensational headline will always draw more attention than a well-reasoned article…..at least for a while.
-MW.
Well that article is pretty short indeed and has no value.
For the rest, IMHO, flash is good for some things and not for some others…
Well I’m not a flash guru, but as an example, yesterday I was searching something on the web (like everyday) and found some interesting site with much text, written in Flash.
There was no way to find (command-F) for a string inside the flash. Is it an implementation problem, or you have to make your own search form inside the swf itself ?
I had a similar discussion the other day. You can find the article here http://www.curtismorley.com
I list many sites that are successful using Flash and still make it on the search engines.