Comments on: Flash vs. Ajax – Entertainment vs. Application http://www.designitsimple.de/2006/04/flash-vs-ajax-entertainment-vs-application/ if it doesn't make sense it doesn't make cents Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:56:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Firefox http://www.designitsimple.de/2006/04/flash-vs-ajax-entertainment-vs-application/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Firefox Mon, 03 Apr 2006 04:44:41 +0000 http://www.designitsimple.de/wordpress/?p=23#comment-10 <strong>Entertainment Versus Application...</strong> AJAX is putting pressure on Flash technology with applications like Writely....... Entertainment Versus Application…

AJAX is putting pressure on Flash technology with applications like Writely…….

]]> By: John Dowdell http://www.designitsimple.de/2006/04/flash-vs-ajax-entertainment-vs-application/comment-page-1/#comment-9 John Dowdell Sun, 02 Apr 2006 19:28:13 +0000 http://www.designitsimple.de/wordpress/?p=23#comment-9 I'm not so sure. The recently-rehabilitated XmlHttpRequest makes text refreshes easier than other JavaScript techniques. This adds to the longtime browser ability to do IMG-refreshes. The range of abilities is less than with a predictable universal browser extension -- people are now combining Ajax+Flash for server push, greater local storage, communications, more -- and the development, testing, and maintainence costs still seem higher with the varying browser engines too. If you can do a job quickly with the browser scripting engines, sure, go for it, but the adoption rates signify that they'd never catch up in deployed capabilities. I'm also still curious what percentage of the viewing public has "any modern browser"... it would be good to quantify how many people such an approach cannot readily serve. jd/adobe I’m not so sure. The recently-rehabilitated XmlHttpRequest makes text refreshes easier than other JavaScript techniques. This adds to the longtime browser ability to do IMG-refreshes. The range of abilities is less than with a predictable universal browser extension — people are now combining Ajax+Flash for server push, greater local storage, communications, more — and the development, testing, and maintainence costs still seem higher with the varying browser engines too. If you can do a job quickly with the browser scripting engines, sure, go for it, but the adoption rates signify that they’d never catch up in deployed capabilities.

I’m also still curious what percentage of the viewing public has “any modern browser”… it would be good to quantify how many people such an approach cannot readily serve.

jd/adobe

]]>