HTML 5 VS Flash

Hello Guys,

Please suggest me what I use HTML 5 or Flash. But I think HTML 5 is better. B'coz we can easily optimize site which can create in HTML 5. Search engine crawler can also read your content.
but in Flash site you can use only Meta's.
am i right??

 

I think it's safe to say that Flash is a thing of the past. The only place where it really still has any use are Flash based online games, but even these will probably die out soon enough because of smartphones and their games.

 

You should really study the object element. It allows for multiple cascaded formats and text.

 

Indeed flash is a thing of the past, but it will stick at least for a few years.

 

I agree that flash is becoming a thing of the past. Honestly can't remember the last time I was on a flash website.

Something else to think about. I believe that a lot of people now are using flash blockers in their browsers. This could effect your traffic and overall effectiveness of your site if it's initially being blocked.

 

The question would hinge on what you mean by HTML 5 and what you would use Flash for...

If you're talking for writing games, HTML 5's CANVAS (which has jack to do with HTML and shouldn't even HAVE a tag) and AUDIO (which is redundant to OBJECT and basically introduces a redundancy HTML 4 STRICT was trying to get rid of!) have a LONG ways to go before you'll see anything coming close to what you'd make for a game with them. With no 'tweening', the massive audio lag, and impractical at best timing controls "HTML5" for game writing is... lacking. Though webGL is very promising, and can do things Flash can't... it's just not there yet for real world use / widespread deployment.

IF you mean on-page animated elements, CSS3 is a better choice to a point; though generally speaking most of what goes past the limits is crap that doesn't belong on websites in the first place. That's a problem a lot of people don't get about flash; it's good for delivering video, making standalone animations and/or games. It should NEVER be used for web content in the first place and using HTML+CSS+SCRIPTS to do the same things that have no business on sites in the first place (like animated banner crap) is missing the point entirely. Same type of nonsense as people hearing "you shouldn't use the target attribute" and immediately diving for javascript to replicate the behavior; COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT!

Basically it's going to be a while before you see anyone replicate "Badger Badger Mushroom Mushroom" using CANVAS and AUDIO. That might not be a bad thing either...

IF you mean delivery of static video, you should probably use both for the time being -- flash for 'real users' since it currently has better hardware acceleration than native browser VIDEO playback does, with HTML 5's VIDEO tag (which is redundant to OBJECT and should never have been a new tag) inside it for effete Apple elitists who are still coping with their sour grapes over Quicktime losing the format wars fifteen years ago (hence the idiotic "VIDEO" tag being used to reignite the format wars) and the FLOSS-Tards with their rah-rah "fight the man" noodle-doodle nonsense about how 'great' OGG & Vorbis are. (which to be brutally frank is the same type of noodle-doodle bekaptah nonsense as the stuff FLAC nutters claim about their wasteful audio format BS)

Of course if you care about trying to add DRM to your content (alright freetards, I baited you, let's hear it) you won't even LOOK at HTML 5 for the time being since until VERY recently it offerred none, and the "Encrypted Media Extension" is still VERY much WIP -- see why Netflix is Silverlight and Hulu is still Flash driven.

Basically as I said at the start, the question is what's the content you are trying to deliver?

 

The only problem I see from switching huge flash-base video website to HTML5 is javascript memory management. Sure, HTML5 uses less memory, but that isn't the case. Flash constantly consume memory, but HTML5 thing's memory is fluctuated, causing rendering isn't smooth.

However, Youtube is able to manage memory allocation, they call it object pooling. It's still a mysterious to me until today. I've asking around over the internet, including the V8 javascript author. None answer the question. If you are able to do what Google engineers did, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

Regarding to online video , so far HTML5 is lacking, you need a good computer to see an online video based on html5 player. Eg: my old Toshiba Satellite 2gig ram, core2 duo with intel integrated graphics card, can`t properly play a html5 video, but has no problem with flash.

 

When thinking about HTML5 thingy, I'm thinking about mobility. My Samsung Galaxy S4 plays HTML5 video well, up to two hours straight. That's our target.

 

That's great website @Marko Platanic Thanks

 

Guess that depends on your definition of "great"... what with the year and a half load times, unable to even finish loading in some browsers (IE11 and Opera 12) and completely inaccessible train wreck of trash design even when it does load. EVERYTHING wrong with web development today in one simple page since the site itself is doped to the gills with EXACTLY the type of script-tard BS I usually am talking about!

 

HTML(Hyper Text Markup Language). HTML code is what you write in order to post text, links, images etc., on your pages. HTML5 is recent version of language and it allows for the integration of videos and animation on your website. HTML helps in SEO. It helps to load website quickly.

Flash is a web language. It enables the addition of animated content and video to a website. It doesn’t help in SEO ranking.

 

I think html5 is better because I hate flash is that it takes too long to load pages as the good thing is that you can make flash animations

 

the elusive HTML5. By the time they get everything up and running on the net, something new will pop-up and place HTML5 back to the drawing board. Just like the article says above, until 2015. That's a long way to go in tech terms. Someone needs to tell Tim Cook to add Flash on their Apple iPad/iPhone/iPod-touch(s) and whatever other overpriced gadgets they have.

 

Finally found someone I can relate to.
Talking about HTML5 as "not being so special", seems like heresy these days. I applaud your bold arguments, deathshadow.

 

Well, I'm a heretic on just about everything; stems from the fact that near as I can tell, sense isn't all that common.

Really not helping matters is that MOST of the stuff people laud as being so great about HTML 5... isn't markup and has no business in a markup specification; specifically all the cool scripting stuff and CSS3 that is really what the OP in this thread is talking about. That has jack **** to do with HTML 5; as evidenced by there being nothing stopping you from using the new scripting and CSS3 in actual RECOMMENDATION doctypes like HTML 4.01 STRICT and XHTML 1.0 STRICT.

Which of course leaves the Emperor standing there bare for all the world to see, since if you then just look at the new markup elements the vast majority of them are either redundant to existing tags (SECTION, ARTICLE, NAV, FOOTER are redundant to H1..H6 and HR, VIDEO, AUDIO and EMBED are redundant to OBJECT), have ZERO business in the markup to begin with (PROGRESS, CANVAS), or allow in tags that were rejected from HTML 4 STRICT for a reason (again, EMBED come to mind)... then you have tags that just beg for abuse like ASIDE, which is either so narrow in semantic meaning it's as useful as ADDRESS, or is so presentational you might as well go back to using the CENTER tag as well.

... and that's without talking the new attributes like PLACEHOLDER which does nothing more but piss on accessibility the way it's scripttard equivalent does; hence all the nice articles on how PLACEHOLDER is not a replacement for LABEL.... Or that the entire concept just promotes false simplicity.

For 99.99% of websites HTML 5 offers no legitimate improvements over 4 Strict or XHTML 4 Strict, and in many ways reeks of the same outdated halfwit garbage code as tranny -- it's why I say that for the most part HTML 5's audience are the folks who until recently were sleazing out HTML 3.2 like it was 1997 and slapping a tranny doctype on it. Now they can wrap 5-lip service around that same outdated, outmoded, broken inaccessible halfwit coding practices and slap each-other on the back on how 'modern' they are. HTML 5 sure as shine-ola isn't meant for anyone who bothered embracing accessibility norms, semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, or any of the dozen other improvements in methodology STRICT markup gave us.

Part of why I think the only reasons HTML 5 'really' exists is for professional lecturers to put buns in seats, authors to slap a new label on their decade and a half out of date books, and for nube predators to have a new sick buzzword to prey on the ignorance of others much akin to "web 2.0"; where anyone using the phrase other than to ridicule it probably doesn't know enough on the topic to be flapping their gums about it.

 

You for got about the possibility. HTML5 offers possibilities that HTML 4 cannot.

 

Such as?!? (or more specifically what does that broken engrish gibberish even mean?)

Apart from Ruby language support it doesn't offer much of anything that couldn't have been done with the existing tags; hence my use of the word "redundant". It just re-introduces all the redundancies HTML 4 STRICT was trying to get rid of.

Unless of course you are referring to all the things that have jack **** to do with HTML 5 that people for some messed up ignorant reason are CALLING HTML 5 -- like the new scripting stuff and CSS3... which NEWS FLASH, isn't HTML and can be used JUST FINE in HTML 4 STRICT or XHTML 1.0 STRICT.

Oddly enough I include CANVAS in that, since as a scripting only DOM element it has no business in the markup in the first place, at which point why the devil does it even HAVE a tag?

 

I guess he meant video or audio tags, but if I'm not wrong, it could have been done before in HTML4 with the object tag...
Some people glorify the "data-*" attribute, but I used to use "rel" before and it suited my needs.

 

That's my point -- what AUDIO and VIDEO do SHOULD have been done with OBJECT. There's a reason APPLET and IFRAME got axed, and that EMBED wasn't accepted into the specification, and we were told LONG before what they call HTML 5 now was a twinkle in the WhatWG's eye that even IMG was on the chopping block in favor of OBJECT. (and the only reason we were never able to implement that real-world is Microsoft dragging it's heels on letting us turn off the border around OBJECT)

STRICT was about removing redundancies, killing off bad accessibility, and making it simpler; HTML 5 (or as I call it, the new tranny) seems to be about re-introducing those redundancies, making all sorts of new ones, pissing on accessibility and making pointlessly complex code -- none of which provides any real benefits to anyone. As I've said several hundred times the past three years, the only way I can see anyone thinking there are legitimate benefits provided by HTML 5 is completely failing to have extracted one's head from 1997's backside -- aka all the people who until recently were sleazing out presentational HTML 3.2 with 4 tranny on it; now just slapping 5 lip-service around the same broken halfwit outdated outmoded coding practices.

Not even close to the same thing as REL... REL is for something entirely different; shame most people just pull random values out of their backside and plug it into REL completely oblivious to the fact that's not what it's for and that there is an actual list of VALID values for it.

The various DATA- attributes just piss me off because it's once again idiocy missing the point of marking up content like we're still writing HTML 3.2 1997-style. The only practical use for them is communicating data to JavaScript -- and much like "scripting only markup elements" (CANVAS, PROGRESS, etc) scripting only data has NO BUSINESS AS ELEMENTS IN THE MARKUP!!!

It's just there for the inept re-re's who piss all over websites and crapplets with scripttardery to make things even more bloated, more slow, and completely breaking the core concept of what HTML is even for.