»Q« wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:47:47 -0600 > Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't flash supposed to be dying >> anyway? Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using >> HTML5? Isn't HTML5 supposed to eliminate flash?? > It's been *supposed* to be dying for years, and HTML5 video was hoped > to be the silver bullet that would finish it off. Mozilla certainly > wants it dead, and IIRC even Google and Adobe have paid lip service to > killing it off. Unfortunately (IMO, natch) Mozilla no longer has the > market share to drive things, and (IMO again) Google doesn't have the > will to deal with it, despite having taken steps such as using HTML5 > on YouTube. Mozilla recently announced deprecation of all NPAPI > plugins -- except Flash, because people whose news/sports/porn videos > stopped working would just switch to Chrome. > > I think we have to look to the big social media companies and to > Google for hope, which is kinda sad. Facebook has recently completed > their transition to using HTM5 video. Twitter's Periscope still uses > Flash. I don't know what critical mass of sites will get Google to > drop Flash support, but I think that's the only way it will eventually > happen. > > AFAIK, with all major browsers supporting HTML5 video, the only reason > so many sites still require Flash is that it costs money to transition.
Crap, it sounds like the buggy has one horse in front and one in the back. No matter how you look at it, they still pushing the buggy. Yes, the horse in the front is actually pushing because of the way the harness is made. Saw that on TV once ages ago. Weird tho. >> I thought Yahoo switched a good while back. I know I went in and >> changed it to use HTML5 but it still gripes when I go there about >> flash being a problem. Odd. > I dunno, I don't use Yahoo much. The griping might be because Yahoo is > embedding Flash from other sites -- I know they do from nfl.com, at > least, because I was watching highlights there yesterday. Well, I tested a theory. I removed flash. I then went to youtube and guess what, the video played fine. So, Youtube is ready for HTML5 it seems but defaults to flash it would seem. Why not the other way around I wonder???? Oh, auto-play was back again too. Grrrrrr!! lol >> I have a weather site that I use and as far as I know, it is flash >> only. Of course, it is a Govt run site so they will likely be the >> very last ones to switch over to the new and improved way too. :/ > Heh, I just found that NOAAH offers looping radar imagery via Java, > Flash, HTML5, and animated GIFs. Talk about the Department of > Redundancy Department. <http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/imagery/eaus.html> I use a different site, will look into yours in a minute tho. I just picked a random radar for a example. http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar.php?rid=GLD&product=NCR&overlay=11101111&loop=yes No flash, no worky. :-( >> I'm planning to do my regular updates shortly. Maybe something new >> will be in the tree by then, I hope anyway. One good thing about it, >> it makes Yahoo not auto-play any more. ;-) > :-) That's one of the big arguments in favor of open tech on the web, > that it gives users more control of their experiences. I don't know of > a way to prevent Flash autoplay short of something like FlashBlock. > > > Well, I do. Just use a version of flash with a security problem. Just saying. ROFL At least it isn't supposed to rain for a week or so. I can't go without that site for a little bit anyway. Dale :-) :-)
