If you include Flash through JavaScript, it will never be an issue for SEO, since Google et al will only see your HTML fallback. When it comes to a first page and being fast, I do agree.

But, it’s not only about development factors, it’s also about marketing and end user experience, where it could be heightened with nice Flash usage.

So, generally, I agree, but it’s a delicate balance between different interests.

Use flash for tools and games .. like what Lars B said .. google is as always a good example ..

Oh and flash suck when it comes to performance and good coding .. it must be the worst compiler ever when breaking out code to functions and objects makes a such an drop on fps ..

OK, here are a few examples:

http://pixlr.com
http://www.gapminder.org/
http://listen.grooveshark.com/
http://www.google.com/analytics/

@ERT: “Apps? Google or Apple can use only JS. Why others cant?”

Google has the right approach to app development and to Flash, as I see it. They use the right technology for the job, including Flash when appropriate, like in Google Analytics and the street view in Google Maps (http://tinyurl.com/buwke7). And when neither JS nor Flash is sufficient, they develop their own plug-ins to enable the functionality and the service they want to develop. That kind of approach to app development seems more productive to me than letting religious views or personal taste in technology decide what you do and don’t do.

I totally agree that building regular web sites entirely in Flash is bad practice. Flash should be used for stuff like the examples above, and for progressive enhancement of web sites, when suitable.

Today I use Flashblock and have allowed only Youtube and a few similar web sites to play Flash. On my old Windows XP/IE6 test machine, I have uninstalled Flash altogether.

The people at Adobe should realise that many computer users hate some of the abilities of Flash that are being misused by advertising companies. If they added more control over the things Flash may and may not do (like browsers do for Javascript), they ‘d solve a big problem.

Aldrik,

Actually, there are a number of reasons why you want to include Flash via JavaScript:

- The problem with Click to activate in IE (like you mention).
- Checking for Flash player support (and version) to avoid serving something which won’t work.
- Always offer a proper HTML fallback which will be replaced by the Flash movie (good for SEO and accessibility), as opposed to only having fallback within object/embed elements.

mdmadph,

Well, Flex does have its upsides, but in the end, if the resulting presentation is Flash, we still have the same pros and cons.

I hate having to depend on proprietary code, but Flex is almost making me want to go over to the dark side.

Jason,
Flash does has the ability to play nice with the browsers history.

For media I prefer the open standard container OGG, that will soon be natively supported by Firefox and Opera. In the meantime you can use the Cortado Java applet and the VLC and Mplayer plug-ins. It’s a bit more complicated but I think it’s worth it to keep everything open.

The only thing I would recommend Flash for is vector animations.

Apps? Google or Apple can use only JS. Why others cant?

In most cases it goes like this: The users are presented with a cool flash application; they have to learn a whole new UI which involves clicking on lots of things. It turns into a big Easter Egg hunt. Eventually they click something and get lost or confused. Then they hit the back button! The End.

You can say that’s not Flash’s fault. It’s the developer’s. So show me a truly useful flash site or application that is more than just a design accent or an ego stroke.

I’m not much of a fan of full-flash websites as often I cannot index pages/sections of such sites. Also the “right-button click” menu functionality (for copying links, opening in new pages etc) is lost, which I find irritating. I don’t like flash intros as a general rule, and skip them whenever possible.