Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Controlling An Embedded Device Using Flash 174

Posted by Hemos from the control-'em-all dept.
JimCricket writes "Art & Logic has just released a web server toolkit based on the open source GoAhead WebServer. The cool part is that it can communicate with Flash presentations using XML-RPC. The idea is to create GUI's to control embedded devices using Flash in addition to (or instead of) HTML. They've posted a little demo running on Windows, but in the real world the server would run on a low-power device. Seems like a great idea for the embedded world, given that Flash interfaces _can_ be very low-memory (as long as Flash designers stick to the vector-based graphics and ActionScript)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Controlling An Embedded Device Using Flash More

Controlling An Embedded Device Using Flash

Comments Filter:

  • ...can't people just use more open stuff like SVG [w3.org] and DOM [w3.org] scripting?


  • If only Macromedia... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @04:24AM (#3935796)
    ...would listen to its customers. We run one of Germany's largest flash-based web sites. We are happy with Flash and what it can do, but we encounter little bugs and annoyances every now and then.

    Macromedia doesn't fix them.

    To make things worse, the German product manager basically tells us "we don't have to fix this. We don't care. Without us, your site wouldn't exist. You better be grateful."

    If only there was an alternative to Flash to escape this.

    (Yadda, yadda, closed source, I know, I know. Trouble is, there is no alternative to Flash at this time.)
    • This is why Macromedia is not exactly in a good position economically: Too many features over reliability.

      I presume you guys have tried the forums and bug reporting on the Macromedia.com website haven't you? They at least answer you there sometimes.
    • If only there was an alternative to Flash to escape this.

      There are several, including Java and (more recently) SVG. Most sites don't benefit from Flash anyway and it just scares users away.

    • If only there was an alternative to Flash to escape this.

      Have you heard of building a website using HTML? Used thoughtfully, it works really well, loads quickly, and is usable on nearly every modern computer. Leaving out JavaScript, Flash, and big images might even allow people to enjoy your website driving up sales tremendously. Try it today! [w3.org]
    • "If only there was an alternative to Flash to escape this."

      Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL): http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/29/smil.html

      Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG):
      http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/

    • That's such bullsh*t and the fact that you're an AC and made no mention of your "largest" company leads me to believe you're just trolling.

      We're a small company and Macromedia does an incredible job responding to us. In fact, I've never worked with a company that is more responsive to their customers. With every product, they have large customer advisory boards who are involved for the entire length of the product cycle. I've personally watched them add feedback from this board into feature lists and have seen them generate fixes off of bug reports.
    • (Yadda, yadda, closed source, I know, I know. Trouble is, there is no alternative to Flash at this time.)
      Actually, the SWF format is open source. Get information at OpenSWF.org [openswf.org]. (While it doesn't mean that there're any better programs for creating SWF files now, it certainly provides for opportunity for a competitive, open source program later.)

      That said, Adobe [adobe.com] makes a SWF program, GoLive [adobe.com]. There is also SWiSH [swishzone.com]. While they're both less advanced (inevitably, since Macromedia was the pioneer of the SWF format), they're good starting points, especially for basic Flash programmers. There was also a 3D Flash program (before Flash 6), but the name escapes me at the moment.

  • need titles that are more clear! (Score:4, Informative)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @04:24AM (#3935799) Journal
    Controlling An Embedded Device Using Flash

    the first thing i thought when i read this was "controlling blah blah using sector-programmable EEPROM"... sigh; been in the hardware side too long.

    side point: flash programs themselves are small and neat -- but the actual client (that reads, processes, and displays the animations and all that) always have seemed quite processor intensive to me, though... so besides being fancy and neat -- i am sure there are more power-saving interfaces you can use if that's really what you are after.

    • flash programs themselves are small and neat

      Good Lord, no. Flash's "programming language" is a joke and even worse is what most Flash designers to with it - since they are designers, not programmers. I'm having a hard time explaining fellow designers what Boolean algebra is - again and again and again.

      • hopefully we will get a real programming language to write in using this framework (haven't read the specifics yet) so we may use flash more productively.

        • "actionscript" is based on ECMA (like javascript). this works really good for interfaces, oop is there, anything more real programming language would be overkill. plus, you would need programmers to make the interfaces not interface designers.

          • [...] plus, you would need programmers to make the interfaces not interface designers.

            maybe that is the very problem: this language is so easy that it makes designers think they can actually do things that are ment for programmers to do. Trying to make complex things simple has been cause for most of the bad things out there today...

      • I think he meant the swf file format itself, which is, like PostScript, as much a programming language as file format (although it is, iirc, a binary format... the instructions are just encoded much like an object file in the C world). In other words, it doesn't really encode the data for a presentation so much as how to generate a display of that data. The simple example would be the swf file having in it the *way to make* a red circle rather than N many red pixels encoded in a certain way to be rendered as a circle...
        • The simple example would be the swf file having in it the *way to make* a red circle rather than N many red pixels encoded in a certain way to be rendered as a circle...

          That is almost the exact definition of vector graphics, which Flash uses. You can save a lot of storage space, but you loose out in display efficiency...the computer has to figure out where each pixel goes, instead of just being told. All in all, it is a very good format for some things...I wonder when the patent will come out...
      • This reminds me of a very funny Far Side cartoon:

        An instructor in a classroom is pointing to a diagram of a simple toggle switch, with one side labeled "on", and the other side "off". One student has his hand raised and is asking "Can we go over that again?"
      • Good Lord, no. Flash's "programming language" is a joke and even worse is what most Flash designers to with it - since they are designers, not programmers. I'm having a hard time explaining fellow designers what Boolean algebra is - again and again and again.

        Surely the deficiencies of the language contribute to the brain-dead nature of some of the code. For example, after I'd written something in Flash 5, but then realized that we needed to support Flash 4, I had to rewrite it -- but it used arrays, etc. So the code ends up looking like a nightmare because lots of useful stuff was being done with dynamically generated variables. :/

        I really think Flash suffers due to its designer-bias, as well -- the GUI is a nightmare and the scripting language remains, oh, about 75% of the way there.
    • flash programs themselves are small and neat -- but the actual client (that reads, processes, and displays the animations and all that) always have seemed quite processor intensive to me, though
      Right on. We should all use Java applets.
    • I think the idea is to separete the viewer from the embeded device. You could control your air conditioning from your computer, using a flash interface.

      I do believe flash is a good "language" to describe such UI interactions. There are lot's of designers that are quite familiar with creating flash animations. Remember that the flash is just the "skin" the inner working will be activated by the web server and would probably be writen in C or assembler just like it always have been.
    • I had the same reaction. Thought there must be some kind of new way of fiddling with the PROMs...

      Now what's this vector-graphics stuff about?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • All I got was (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Technician ( 215283 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @04:28AM (#3935811)
    Requires Macromedia Flash Player 6
    on the little demo page. Too bad I removed FLASH due to it's abuse by web advertisers. I hope Macromedia will put out a player that can be set by default to not play flash. HINT HINT! I'm not going to install it to watch a demo and remove it for the rest of my browsing. Is a play button too much to ask?

    • Re:All I got was (Score:2, Insightful)

      by alexburke ( 119254 )
      Requires Macromedia Flash Player 6
      on the little demo page. Too bad I removed FLASH due to it's abuse by web advertisers. I hope Macromedia will put out a player that can be set by default to not play flash. HINT HINT! I'm not going to install it to watch a demo and remove it for the rest of my browsing. Is a play button too much to ask?

      Two quick questions:

      (1) If you knew you didn't have the plugin installed, why did you bother clicking through? The demo was clearly described as being Flash.

      (2) What the fuck good would a Flash plugin be that, by default, doesn't play Flash? Does your web browser, by default, not render HTML?! (I'm sure there's a Netscape joke in there somewhere, but I'm generally not one to make cheap shots.)

      If you're so worried about ads, do yourself a favor and install Guidescope [guidescope.com]. It's a little proxy that sits in your system tray, bound to port 8000 of (only) your localhost interface, and you tell IE that localhost:8000 is your proxy for HTTP content. It then replaces known ads with a gray box the same size as the ad, so it won't break the layout of pages. (Optionally you can have it nuke them altogether.) It can optionally block some or all cookies, too.
      • I would consider a Flash on/off preference more like the display images feature that some browsers have. Flash is not equivalant to Html, because it's a freaking plugin.

        Macrodedia should at least give users the choice to run Flash content on a page.. not make them choose between watching every offensive Flash ad or uninstalling the plugin entirely.. I made my choice to be rid of Flash some time ago, and couldn't be happier.

        And to the reply of "just filter it out!", would that work for the 85% of the population who are not as computer saavy as the typical /.er?

      • What the fuck good would a Flash plugin be that, by default, doesn't play Flash?

        Well, it would be good for not consuming every resource on my computer, good for not booming unsolicited sound throughout my office, and good for increasing the overall reliability of my browser (Flash ain't bug-free!).

        However, it would also be good for manually allowing those few Flash animations that actually add value to a web site. The key word, here, is "few".

        An opt-in Play button would be an excellent feature for Flash. Without it, I am much more inclined to simply leave the Flash plugin sitting by itself and unloved in a subdirectory called "disabled".
    • I hope Macromedia will put out a player that can be set by default to not play flash
      If you're using IE6, click on Tools -- Internet Options -- Security -- Custom. Then under ActiveX and Plug-ins section set everything that is ENABLED to PROMPT. e.g. Download signed ActiveX controls - prompt; Run ActiveX controls and plugins - prompt
      • And what do I do if I'm using Linux? Oh yes, that's right, wait for Macromedia to notice, sneer at the hippies, and then release a version that's slower than the Windows one and months later.

        Grrrr.
        • Write your own. You have the source right?
          • Unfortunately I am not a software author. I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. Before you call me dumb, I am a ISCET Certified Tech. I'm a hardware tech. I can but a Broadcast radio station back on the air that has been hit by lightning (ask for photos) so my field of expertise is not software coding. Would you know how to fix a 50 KW FM transmitter dammaged by lightning? I know how to use a Motorolla D2000. My debuging tools is not compilers and such, it's storage oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, time domain reflectometers, digital multimeters, directional wattmeters, etc. We are only experts in our own fields.
          • Macromedia keep their source releases and SWF spec releases one version behind the current one, and even then the license terms are very restrictive.
            • Not talking about the source to the SWF player, Dr. Clever. He's talking about the browser. No source if you're using NS4 or Opera, but a feature like the one is IE which was discussed could easily be added to Mozilla.
    • . Is a play button too much to ask?

      There is a PLAY buton in the drop down menu (right click). You can't set it to be in STOP by default though.
      • PLAY buton in the drop down menu (right click).
        True, It is supposed to be there. Unfortunately some advertisers abused the control given them and I had too many ads that provided a right menu of one item;
        "About Macromedia Flash"
        That is why I mentioned advertiser abuse.
        This abuse led to the removal of flash on my system. Those ads were worse than blinking banners. The normal way to stop blinky flashly distracting things won't stop those flash ads. The only way found was remove flash. Another post recommends upgrading IE to 6 to get the ability to change Active X from enabled to prompt. I'll have to look into that. Is there a Netscape equivelant? I don't usualy use IE at home.
    • Is a play button too much to ask?

      It has nothing to do with this plugin software. Instead, it has to be in the preferences of your Mozilla browser along with "Javascript" and "Popup" options.

      You have low chances to force Macromedia to abandon their own player.

      You have good chances (if you are a good programmer) to add such patch to Mozilla as this browser is available in the source code.

      Of course I don't care about IE as I abandoned IE as a closed proprietary software.

    • I hope Macromedia will put out a player that can be set by default to not play flash

      Send an email to wish-flash@macromedia.com
  • i don't really get what this story is about.
    it can communicate via xml. that is good, but not really special. if it can communicate via xml, of course it can communicate with flash.

    so... what's it about?

  • I am a home theater addict and have been very disturbed by the fact that the home theater industry moves just as fast as the computer industry but you can't upgrade your components unless you get something from manufacturers like Krell, Meridian, Theta Digital.

    So... many of us are using what we call Home Theater PC's (HTPC) to play DVD's in Progressive scan mode to feed our DLP projectors, using MP3/Ogg/Wav files for our home audio collections, HDTV decoder cards, etc. The problem is that all this stuff needs to be easily controlled with a remote. Many people have designed interfaces using flash/webserver and they tie it into an IR controll system. Maybe this will make it easier to hide the computer-ness of our HTPC and make them more appliance-like.

    If interested, avsforum.com has some nice forums for discussion in the realm of HTPC's.

  • info on flash on devices (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    fyi:
    macromedia has a mobile device development center for flash
    http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/mobile/ [macromedia.com]

    and there is this book:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735711771/ [amazon.com]

  • The company I work for have been mixing php and flash for quite some time to achieve the same effects. I has always felt a little hacky to mix php and flash since flash doesn't really like to talk to a database. Hopefully this framework will help out in making our solutions more clean.

    I haven't read their entire description of their framework yet (I am going to) but it sounds very promising. Having /. propose new software packages for my company is actually quite nice :)

  • Advantages (Score:3, Interesting)

    by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @04:36AM (#3935833)
    The real advantages here aren't so much in the "hey neat" category, but in the application of this technology. Not all of us are all that efficient at gathering information from text logs or what have you - many of us are more visual. If I could have a small flash application based on this technology that used images or even sounds to say, help me visualize the load on each of my servers from home, great! Instead of browsing through several megs (or gigs) of logs, I just look for the image of the server on fire. It won't eliminate the need for "down and dirty" work, but I can certainly think of many examples of where it could minimize it.
  • I've always though of Flash as being a high-overhead, annoying, processor intensive thing. Most people heavily abuse it (for example, website intros), so, in my own mind, it has no legitimate use. Sure, it's cute to play "slap the monkey" once in a while, but I'd be hard pressed to think of it as having real-world uses. This is an interesting perspective. It's easy to forget the inherent efficiency of it's vector-based engine.

  • as a hardware designer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    flash for an interface is just a stupid idea.

    why goto the trouble/expense of including a vfd or a full color lcd. then emulating all the things flash needs to run. vs making a custom lcd/vfd display with your buttons on it (even if it looks just like the flash) and use that.

    oh morphing interfaces you say. the answer... do we really need a remote control with skins. do we need a tv that has some silly panasonic movie running on it all day.

    Look at all the crap thats gotten into car stereo head units these days. I mean the rice-boys love it but i still cant find a decent nice sounding stereo system for under 500 bux that has all the outputs and FUNCTIONAL abilities i want. Instead to get (rca) instead of line leads off a device you have to goto the $700 (cdn) range and end up gettin these stupid pixel usually like 320x100 displays and they distract the hell out of you while driving... I DONT NEED A GRAPHIC EQUALIZER...

    oh yes you can turn the crap off but at the end of the day you've paid an extra 200 for the stupid display.

    leave hardware alone, keep it away from macromedia and microsoft. embedded linux is nice because its just so barebones simple when it gets to that level. flash would seriously gum it up.

    keep hardware devices simple. provide functionality not flash. its not a website they're not sitting there for the purpose of that site. With hardware you want to use the damned thing not have it look pretty.

    The ONLY exception might be in the intergrated appliance market eg a microwave that has a vfd display that is a picture on the wall for example (like in anti-trust the movie).

    in which case however flash still isnt the answer. a custom application is. faster better and most importantly designed to do the job specifically.

    flash really is bloat ware when it comes to the stuff needed to properly impliment it and short of a specialty product from macromedia trying to adapt it is just plain silly.

  • The UI seems like a good idea, and taking advantage of FLash is a good move. Hovewer, I think HTML just interfaces better with XML.
  • Well, to be honest, I hate flash. It's bloated (compared to plaintext) and it's more or less useless and doesn't do anygood to web pages. Yeah, plain old HTML2.0 with tables would be enough for me. Flash might be good for some gadget, but think of it again... Are you really sure you want to stick it in everything?

    I have a bad feeling about this ;> :))

  • It may not look as "flashy", but Java has a much more traditional toolkit than Flash and has extensive libraries to support this kind of functionality. And embedded system programmers are much more likely to feel comfortable with Java than with Flash.

    Note that it doesn't matter whether the Flash player is smaller than the Java runtime because that part of it runs in the web browser, not the embedded system. From the point of view of the embedded system, what matters is the footprint of the Flash or application specific class files, and Java is probably competitive there.

    • And embedded system programmers are much more likely to feel comfortable with Java than with Flash.

      embedded system programmers shouldn't make the interfaces anyway. interface designers should, and they are much more likely to feel comfortable with flash.
      the reason why people can't set the clock on their vcr is that technical people make the interfaces, not interface designers.

      • Interface designers design interfaces. Programmers implement them. Programmers use toolkits, not Flash. Being an interface designer doesn't qualify you as a programmer.

        the reason why people can't set the clock on their vcr is that technical people make the interfaces, not interface designers.

        Yeah, right: if your VCR were designed by interface designers, like Microsoft Word, it would have 200 buttons, be bigger than the TV set, crash with regularity, and cost $500. The reason why VCR clocks are hard to set is because there isn't much room for buttons or much money for fancy software. It's called an "engineering tradeoff". Get used to it. If you want a better VCR, pay more: the high end ones are simpler to use or set themselves automatically.

        • Yeah, right: if your VCR were designed by interface designers, like Microsoft Word, it would have 200 buttons, be bigger than the TV set, crash with regularity, and cost $500.

          that's if you hire a bad interface designer. see below.

          The reason why VCR clocks are hard to set is because there isn't much room for buttons or much money for fancy software. It's called an "engineering tradeoff". Get used to it.

          my cheapo vcr has an on screen menu. there is plenty of room.

          If you want a better VCR, pay more: the high end ones are simpler to use or set themselves automatically.

          they are simpler to use because they were designed by better interface designers.
          the vcr clock thing was supposed to be an example. it seemed to be common knowledge people can't set the clock on their vcrs. maybe it's not true. i hope it's not true.

          the good thing about using flash for interfaces is that interface designers can implement the interfaces. at least if it's not a dynamic interface, you don't need real programmers. that way you avoid communication problems and the designer knows what's possible, what has certain advantages/disadvatnages and so on.
          engineers often even write the manuals.

          • I find it weird that a lot of people use the VCR blinking clock as an example for bad interfacing. Think a bit further...could it be that users don't care? Look at the windows desktops: 95% of them use the default ugly blue colour scheme. It's a similar problem: one might it find easier to set it to a more soothing green, but the user doesn't care.

            I'm sorry, I'm an IT guy...I know how to change the clock on my VCR. It blinks on 0:00 anyway and you know why? I don't care, I just use it for playback anyway and each time there is a power outage (we recently got quite a few) I'd have to set it back to the right time again. Not to mention summer and winter time. No thanks, let it blink... (Same for the clock on my HiFi btw...never understood why they can't put a rechargable battery in those things)

            Back in my young days I couldn't understand the blinking 0:00 phenomenon, now I do...

            • i believe it is a metaphor.

              i don't even know what the clocks are good for. i get the time by the push of a button on my tv (teletext, so no programming required). i set the vcr clock to anything to keep it from nagging, because i'm to lazy to put a tape over it. i generally mistrust hifis with a clock.

              the windows desktop colors are set to be the least annoying (contrary to the way the windows appear, btw). but quite frankly, i doubt joe user knows how to change it (if he heared it was possible at all).
              observe non-techies use interfaces if you get the chance. you will be amazed.

            • I use my VCR in the same way about; setting the is a waste of time, it would enable a feature I don't use anyway. However, apparently people who design devices don't like it when users don't want to use all the features, like the clock. So they do things like this:

              * Make 12:00 blink annoyingly on the VCR, so you end up with setting it or leaving the VCR on (with a tape in) to get it to not do that.

              * Going even farther, the folks who design GE microwave ovens feel so strongly that the clock is an important feature that they device cannot be used at all for its main purpose, without first setting the clock (time/date) which has nothing to do with that purpose.
    • Hi --
      I'm the Chief Architect of the DMF. The problem that we find with Java is the same one encountered by everyone using client-side Java: Write Once, Debug Everywhere. Flash works identically on every platform, and the files are significantly smaller.

      Of course, since it's using XML-RPC under the hood, we don't care what language sits at the other end. I did all my testing using Python's xmlrpclib, and xmlrpc.com lists client implementations in just about every language that's widely used (except COBOL and FORTRAN...)

      You want to talk to a device running our DMF from a Java (or C++, or LISP) client, that's cool. Dave Winer could control his router from inside Radio Userland. Whatever.

      The important thing (to me, as a designer) is that we've implemented a clean, open, simple protocol that lets us and our customers build richer monitor and control interfaces than we can using just HTML.
    • Java blows too. An example of a Java app would be Limewire, where the most clunky app possible is what we ended up with. Doesn't run smoothly, share resources, etc..

      No Java.

  • Take a look at XWT (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Insig ( 595213 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @04:56AM (#3935885)
    XWT [xwt.org]

    For a lightweight interface system that talks XML-RPC/SOAP and is easy to port to other platforms.

    It's written in Java, but natively compiles on Linux/Win32. None of the speed problems of Java (thanks to a different design tack with Box rendering).

    Of course, the obvious advantage over Flash is the fact it's open source (GPL).

    • I was thinking about something like this recently. However, I envisioned it using XUL/XPCOM. If Moz/Netscape were as prolific as they were 4 years ago, this sort of tech could take over the world.
    • Of course, the obvious advantage over Flash is the fact it's open source (GPL).

      GPL is not advantage, it is rather a problem. Use BSD-like licenses for application you may want to use in the business.

      Frankly speaking - use Mozilla and XPCOM, which is, by the way, much better designed, much better implemented and is completely a cross platform thing.

      I've tried XWT on Linux/PPC - it doesn't work. I think that XWT guys think "Linux" about "Linux/x86" sub-platform.

  • Pros and cons (Score:4, Informative)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @05:16AM (#3935917) Journal
    They wouldn't have done this unless there were some good reasons to do so. The Flash engine is small and runs on embedded devices due to Macromedia's tireless attempts to get it everywhere they can. A simple Flash player and Flash application can come in under 500k and there is no browser on earth that can match this. Flash supports XML calls although it doesn't validate them. This idea neglects a security model as Flash doesn't have one with respect to the server so I hope these guys are not planning on doing stock quotes or transactions or something like that. The Flash interface is a good idea on precisely those devices and may yet gain more acceptance than Flash in the browser ever did, because the browser is really meant for HTML and nothing else.
  • That's a baby's attitude - learning to move the fingers and put the foot into the mouth. Hhhmmm - tasty!

    When Flash is used to control micro-devices, I'm going to use assembler for movie-making.

    Please switch on the brain before programming.
  • Mistake: Using the words Flash and Embedded in the article title.

    Problem 1: Flash is a very common kind of memory chip used in embedded devices. In fact, it's a multi-billion dollar industry. And it has nothing to do with Shockwave or Macromedia.

    Problem 2: There's no embedded computer in the example - it's a Windows box.

    • Solution 1: Read the press release. Unless Macromedia has gone into the semiconductor business, they are using that vector animation technology you know and love.

      Solution 2: Yeah we know, it says so right there where JimCricket submitted it and Hemos posted it.

      • Flash is a very common kind of memory chip used in embedded devices.
        He's also a superhero who hates Ming the Merciless.
        There's no embedded computer in the example - it's a Windows box.
        Microsoft's idea of an embedded device is having a full-size tower case strapped to your head running .NET with an IDE cable impaled in your tongue (hence embedded)
  • It seems a good enough idea to develop a single, friendly interface to be used within embedded systems - you'd be able to put it on one standard chip, interfaces for all your devices could be pretty similar, they could be customisable, and so on and so forth.

    What a lot of people seem to think is that Flash is an unnecessarily bloaty platform for such interfaces. To a large extent, that's true. But what the average end user 'wants', above a friendly, functional interface, is one that looks good. I'm trying to avoid using the phrase "looks flash", but it is just too appropriate here.

    Ultimately, it would be very nice if the interface of choice were not Flash, and there will be many others who could enlighten everyone as to what the better option would be. It doesn't matter if things aren't standardised across the board either, but I don't think I'd like to see things go the way of Flash at the moment - apart from anything else, I find anything that's controllable with a keyboard - even if it is just shortcut keys for menus - far easier and quicker to use, and I've not seen that implemented in Flash.
  • "Source code licenses sell for $9895 and include 40 hours of co-engineering and 90 days of e-mail support."

    I'm having a hard time seeing the impact on my life.

  • You know, of course, that several games on Playstation have used Flash for the interface - the bits of the interface like game saving and menu selection that don't require a 3d engine to run.

    The rationale being that Flash is simple and works out-of-the box for creating interactive screns of this type. Once the actual designs are done it is literally an afternoon's work to tie the screens and buttons together. The Playstation Flash Player communicates with the the game engine through an API and so can be integfrated with any game relatively quickly.

  • XML-RPC? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by togofspookware ( 464119 )
    I'd think that if you want this to be a low-bandwidth interface, XML-RPC is about the last thing you'd want to use. What's wrong with good old fasioned URL-formatted parameters?

    I mean,

    <?xml version="blah"?>

    <methodCall>

    <methodName>eat_cheese</methodName>

    <params>

    <param>

    <name>amount</name>

    <value>lots</value>

    </param>

    </params>

    </methodCall>

    just seems like overkill to me when you could just do:

    action=eat_cheese&amount=lots

    I guess I'm just behind the times...
    • You can do a lot more with XML-RPC than URL paramters. Some things are better done with URL parameters, yes. But not all of them. XML-RPC also makes it easy to use the data that is returned.

      If you want to see overkill, look at SOAP.
  • They've posted a little demo running on Windows, but in the real world the server would run on a low-power device.

    So this was a real-world test? I'm confused...

  • Just wanted to point out that an application written for flash uses a proprietary application to run and a proprietary ide to develop. This should cause people concern.

    Market infrastructure should not be based on monopolistic proprietary technologies.
  • Something along the lines of translated bios codes.

    Maybe a Over Temp on a CPU could play the "FIRE BAD! FIRE BAAAADDD" clip from the Metallica/Napster flash movies.

    That's be so funny.
  • Ergg. My first thought was of turning on the microwave, and getting a light show with a cheesy tune played using the beeper, along with a prompt to 'Press here to skip intro and begin cooking.'
    • Ergg. My first thought was of turning on the microwave, and getting a light show with a cheesy tune played using the beeper, along with a prompt to 'Press here to skip intro and begin cooking.'

      Don't laugh, it's probably coming. Just look at the horrid interfaces on stereos, both home and in-car these days.

      The ideas people have about "good" interfaces these days is amazing. Yesterday I went to a restaurant web site and it was almost all flash. To get a listing of stores I had to install Flash and wait 4 minutes for the page to load. Then I needed to get an email address from Cox Cable and instead of a few bytes needed to show the email address, I got a 10 minute download and a form instead. The JavaScript and Flash code in it was 99.something percent of the page.

      In what way is this better than just giving me an email address?

      With examples like those in mind, I don't see a lot of benefit in embeded Flash except the hoarde of monkeys who make purchases based on what is the shiniest.

  • Yeah, not a flame, nor a troll, but Flash does really blow.
    What does it blow, you ask?

    It blows sheep, goats, and other farm animals.

    If you really want a solution that will work for multiuser stuff, as well as handle MORE THAN 2 FREAKING MINUTES OF VIDEO, you should definitely go with Shockwave. Director rules all.
    Here's a toy! [facethecrowd.com]

    Hope we can get off our Flash high horse and start pushing towards better things. There are but a handful of people who know how to use Flash properly, and you're not one of them ;)

    I quote:

    "Everyone in the universe has a hardon for Flash. There are aliens
    visiting Earth right now trying to get Flash. Beings from other
    dimensions are extruding into our four just to have access to Flash.
    Bacteria are evolving into eukaryotic symbiotes so they can form more
    complex colonial creatures which eventually specialize and
    differentiate, developing eyespots and a notochord, eventually
    transforming into a vertebral column and enlarged anterior ganglion
    -- developing musculature, skeletal structure and so on, just so they
    can have fingers so they can use them to work with Flash.

    That said, the only practical use anyone has actually found for Flash
    is those "Skip Intro" pages that everyone skips with a grunt of mild
    irritation.

    • That said, the only practical use anyone has actually found for Flash is those "Skip Intro" pages that everyone skips with a grunt of mild irritation.

      That's simply not the case. There are some compelling Flash applications, such as the...

      Korean Arse Shooter [meehawl.com] .
  • Hey! I'd just like to thank all the guys/gals on this site that keep naysaying flash, and pull uneducated opinions about its capabilities out their asses.

    Cheers! Everytime I read some dumb-assed opion about how the web should be HTML forever, I know that's one less person I have to worry about competing with for a job. Have fun writing your useful web based applications in HTML.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close