Hi /g/
tl;dr Is Flash dead for interactivity? Alternatives?
I have a website where I display my art work, drawings and shit like that.
I have a project that I want to animate and display on the site, a kind of digital book that you can click to turn the pages, with some small animation on the pages.
I would usually use Flash for this, but everyone is saying Flash is dead, and I don't want to have to remake the project soon because of it.
Is there an alternative to Flash for interactivity on the market? Is there something that will output an interactive cartoon that is compatible with html5?
Thanks.
>>52220778
Don't even talk about flash. It doesn't exists. It's dead.
>>52220835
So what is the alternative, Mr. Jobs?
>>52220778
>a kind of digital book that you can click to turn the pages
Worst idea ever. I can't stress enough how much I hate those. Fuck off back to tumblr with that shit. This is one of the many cancers of the internet.
>>52220863
That's cool, I just don't want to fully animate it because tweening sucks dick.
How about a video with just the keyframes drawn, like old Brad Neely style? Is that better?
tattoo your artwork on your penis and go around flashing it to people. very original approach, will get you hired everywhere. only won't work if you have a small penis however
>>52220894
Yeah, videos are generally much better than virtual books or those retarded 20 page galleries or what they're even called.
>>52220915
Ok.
>>52220940
Ok, thanks for the feedback. So not having an animation tweened isn't the bad part? I thought being able to turn the pages would justify not animating the images.
I'll just do it like a slideshow with narration and export it as a video.
http://occupyflash.org/
>>52221001
Nice website, but what's the alternative for a project like this right now?
I'm all for not using Flash, that's why I'm here asking what to use instead.
If you can't name anything not Flash that does the thing I'm asking, Flash isn't dead and you can choke on a dick.
>>52220966
I think the point is that most people (including myself) don't like to click when it's not necessary. That's why virtual books as slideshows are terrible. It's so much easier to just watch a video with one single click or go through an article/gallery with scrolling only.
Speaking of which, have you thought about doing those fancy slideshows where you only have to scroll and the page jumps to the next pic accordingly? Right now can't give examples, but they're not that bad.
>>52221118
You mean like Parallax scrolling websites? That could be a cool idea.
The story is kinda in the style of a children's book, with a lot of narration and dialogue over a simple image, so it might work for that.
>>52221051
So what are you saying? That if nobody can muster up a solution to your problem they're an idiot? Do you value your beloved features above security that much?
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/6761/Adobe-Flash-Player.html?vendor_id=53
http://malware.dontneedcoffee.com/
>>52221187
>That if nobody can muster up a solution to your problem they're an idiot?
It's not my problem, it's a problem for anyone who was already using Flash for projects such as this, and now cannot because the software uses to display it is being replaced.
It's also a problem for anyone desperately advocating it's a replacement on the internet who wants to be taken seriously. If you can't name an alternative, don't demand it's replacement.
>Do you value your beloved features above security that much?
I just want to make shit that people can see on their computers, dude. I'm not advocating Flash, I'm asking for an alternative. If there isn't one, why not?
>>52221167
Yeah, I think it's parallax scrolling. Can't check now because on mobile.
But I remember where I've seen such a thing now, the xiaomi miband 2's website.
www.mi.com/sg/miband/
Something along the lines would be nice for a gallery, especially for some children's book style.
>>52221261
It's a great idea, and I just finished a basic Web Dev course for the purpose of being able to make shit like this. Thanks very much for your help.
Why do you think people are ok with scrolling pages at their own pace, but not clicking to turn pages?
>>52221001
>>52221187
Hey anon, I heard you were still making jam sandwiches using bread. Don't you know bread sucks and no one should use it ever again?
What should you use instead?
I don't know, but bread sucks.
Just eat the jam by itself.
Or don't eat the jam.
Don't use bread though!
>>52221253
nobody that cares about security will use flash, you will be making your site inaccessible to a large chunk of people
>>52221328
So what's the secure alternative?
>>52221290
Because to click, you have to point your mouse, click the button, etc which I think is distracting (inb4 autism hard). Whereas when you're just scrolling, your mouse can be anywhere on the page, and it's easier to scroll than to click, to me at least. It is also less noisy, which can also be distracting. So all in all, ergonomically it's a better solution, and think what you want, this is what the late Steve Jobs understood so well. Software ergonomy is very important, that is why Linux will never be a desktop OS. Most distros are shit ergonomically.
>>52221434
I see. You've given me some great ideas on more future-proof alternatives for this, thanks very much. Parallax Scrolling will make it nicer on tablets and mobiles, too.
>>52221253
I can understand it sucks for developers that are used to an environment, but ends up being to vulnerable to actually develop for. However, this hasn't stopped JRE for example...
However, I'm of the opinion that as long as people don't embrace the open standards, such as HTML5, it holds back the development of the project to actually be a full replacement to what you're used to now.
But people hate change and are prone to legacy. People suck.
>>52221316
This analogy is not pertinent to the discussion without supporting your assertion as to why 'bread sucks'. There are numerous reasons not to use Flash, whereas your post doesn't mention any reason why not to use, or eat, bread.
>>52221434
nobody was even talking about operating systems you cumguzzling macfag
>>52221366
HTML5 + CSS (inb4 memeTML).
As you said, your main audience will be children (or something like that) and kids these days use tablets a lot, and there's no flash on either Android or iOS. HTML5 galleries work well on tablet, phones AND desktop. I just checked that xiaomi page and works well on phone too.
So yeah, you should also think about on which platform will your audience enjoy your work. It's not necessary desktop.
>>52221491
bread has security holes. nobody is gonna make bread without security holes until everybody stops using the bread they are already using.
>>52221504
I know, I just mentioned it as an example. I actually took a 'software ergonomy' course last year. Interesting and useful stuff.
I use Windows BTW.
>>52221511
It's in the style of a children's book, not necessarily for children, and the rest of my site is definitely meant for adults, but yeah, using web tools seems to be the best way for everyone's experience. I just wish there something as point-and-click easy as Flash animating was.
>>52221527
>>>52221491 (You)
>bread has security holes.
Citation needed. As a reminder, here are Flash's >>52221187
>>52221560
Adding onto this, I have done some minor CSS and html, and am willing to learn more to make this project work, but is there a more visual way to "animate" objects in this code? Or would all the animation be done in the text editor?
>>52221560
Can't the latest Adobe tool do that? They just renamed it.
>>52221578
trying to take my metaphor literally doesnt stop it from pointing out the flaw in your argument.
im obviously not actually telling you bread is bad.
>>52221602
>>52221589
www.zdnet.com/article/adobe-renames-flash-professional-to-animate-pivots-to-html5/
>>52221602
>>52221602
The thing that replaced Flash? I haven't looked yet. Are you saying you can animate like in Flash but export in a way that is html5 compatible?
>>52221609
>>>52221578 (You)
>trying to take my metaphor literally doesnt stop it from pointing out the flaw in your argument.
It's not flawed in the way you claim. My references for my assertions are publicly verifiable whereas yours are missing.
>im obviously not actually telling you bread is bad.
I'm aware. It's also a bad analogy.
>>52221632
Yes. That's what I read anyway. I don't use these software though.
>>52221627
It's not the same shit though. It's not just renamed but also more focused on HTML5 than flash.
>>52221675
So replace "Bread" with "Software with security issues of your choice".
You're still demanding someone stop using software without providing an alternative.
I don't mind being told "Flash is shit" or even "Flash is dead, try find something else" which is why I made the thread in the first place, but don't go posting Anti-Flash advocate websites with revolutionary imagery and commanding text, spouting about how shit its security is, without providing any sort of alternative whatsoever, and then expect that people will simply "stop using Flash and just go without anything for a while until someone actually makes a good alternative".
>>52221716
The point is it's still Flash, coded by the same retarded monkeys on their payroll. It's a stupid attempt to get away with Flash's negative reputation, just like IE is now Edge.
quite a few cartoons are made with flash
>>52221764
It is literally not flash. You can export your animation to vanilla HTML5+CSS+JS without any flash content whatsoever.
>>52221777
TV cartoons? I'm pretty sure they aren't using Flash anymore, more likely ToonBoom, but either way it's beside the point, if I was making a regular animation I could export it as any kind of playable video I wanted, bypassing the problems with security and web support.
>>52221798
>>52221716
>>52221620
>>52221602
This is great, thanks very much guys. I'll check this out as well as Parallax.
>>52221829
You're welcome.
>>52221759
I'm not demanding anything. I just want people to make informed decisions about the software they use.
HTML5 is a valid solution for a lot of applications Flash is used for, just not all. The 'just not all' part is of course what you're interested in, and that's understandable. Just don't expect people to continue using Flash just because you have no alternative to develop your applications which doesn't put your consumers at serious risks. Remember, the CVE list has sky rocketed last year.
>>52220778
You're making a website: design it as a website, not as a book. Use images (jpg or png) to show images, video (ogv or mp4 or w/e) to show moving stuff. If you're gonna make animated stuff, use the technology provided for it: css animations and js interactivity. Design it to work as a properly designed website with sections like image browsing and whatnot, don't try to implement some non-website concept using a website as the medium.
That goes for literally everything. I hate it when people take something that has its own specific use case and try to use it for something it's not meant for or try to use concepts that don't belong in it.
And flash is the cancer of the web at this point. It has been abused so much and it's such an awful program that even legit use cases are no longer acceptable.
>>52221886
>don't expect people to continue using Flash just because you have no alternative
Again, this thread was made in order to find an alternative, because I was determined not to use Flash.
Coming into a thread about "What to use instead of Flash because I'm not going to use Flash" and saying "Don't use Flash!" is fucking retarded, and you have contributed nothing to anybody.
>>52221983
The website is not flash based, just one of the books on it. The rest of the site's images, video, and other content is there using html and CSS.
The problem was this project in particular, because of required controls, not being possible within non-Flash software.
I have since found an alternative.
Thanks for your input anyway.
>>52222020
Had I known you were OP as opposed to this childish response >>52221316 that would suggest otherwise, I might have engaged this conversation a little bit differently thinking you weren't taking a such defensive position for Flash.
