There’s a raging debate on Webdesign-L right now as to the merits of Flash, and it’s gotten me thinking about and clarifiying some of my attitudes about it.

#1 - I like TV, but it’s not the web. It’s not even close. TV gives no choices. I have to view what they give me, when they choose to give it to me. (Programming the VCR will only go so far, and I can’t afford TiVo)

On the web, I can find what want, when I want it.

People are not satisfied with TV. Look at the “100 channels and nothing to watch” truism. Look at how broadcast stations are trying to remove Tivo’s commercial skipping abilities. The more choices a viewer has, the less power a TV broadcaster has.

If we make the web just like TV, we will be doing a disservice to all those who are on line for something other than an entertainment experience. That’s not just a lot of people here (north America), but a lot of people *all over the world*. I think that’s short sighted, and misses the point of the medium.

#2 - I have problems with the attitude that people *must* want rich multi media and without this the web will always be the ugly duckling cousin. I feel this talks down to the majority of people. Yes, some people go to some sites to be entertained, and this may or may not be done with flash/multimedia. But people use the web for a lot of reasons other than entertainment. (Communication, research, education, business…..)

If some marketing guy decides that I need a full immersive flash experience just so I can find a decent recipe for chicken stock, there’s a problem.

#3 - Flash requires the purchase of (expensive) proprietary software. HTML requires a text editor.

Flash is very good for some things, but it’s not good for everything. *Nothing* is good for everything everywhere.

#4 - Flash is to the web as magazine ads are to TV ads. Pushing HTML developers into flash as if it’s the only way to go is akin to telling someone who makes their living designing ads for printed magazines and billboards that all those magizines and billboards are about the be replaced by video screens and all their work will now have to sing and dance like a used car commercial. If you think this isn’t a problem, think of all the craptastic, low budget, self produced ads for local businesses you can find on local cable stations. Communication via moving pictures is a specialized skill. It is *not* something everyone can do.

Case in point:
After almost four years of going to college for written communications, I was shoved into a series of documentary and digital video classes. I was able to operate the software/hardware just fine, but my work still sucked because I had no idea how to get what I wanted to say across in a multimedia envionment. Being a multimedia designer is *not* the same as being a web or print designer. Insisting that one is better than the other is meaningless. You would not ask a video director to lay out your new trifold brochure or
come up with your new letterhead/logo would you?