My sense is that until folks are using Adobe CS4 which would replace the AC_FLxxx references with SWFObject references, there will always be a tug of war between people who don't care enough to exercise control over their users' flash experience (they just want it to work), and people who are very cognizant of a user base that might not have the version of Flash required, or even Javascript and are therefore highly appreciative of the control that using SWFObject brings.
Convenience vs. functionality is the issue. SWFObject isn't particularly convenient to use if you're just a copy/pasting HTML coder, as it actually requires you to consider paths, object notation, and even domain issues -- these aren't taught in HTML 101, although I wish they would be someday. I'm not sure if the answer is to pimp something like Steve's Enhance project for this group of users (does it make sense to provide him some linkthrough traffic as an associated project on the project home page?), or maybe make the code generator even more obvious in our documentation? I personally think the code generator is a pretty decent and useful piece of work; I question whether or not people actually run across it enough. At the end of the day, while the initial post wasn't particularly flattering it does call out a legitimate concern of a user; whether that user is as well-informed/knowledgable as they could be is besides the point. Just my 2 cents, Vincent On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Philip Hutchison <[email protected]>wrote: > the activex issue is probably because the file is being tested locally. > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Getify Solutions, Inc. > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> The only way to install flash from the browser is via Adobe's website, on >> their flash player download page. SWFObject has nothing to do with that >> kind >> of feature. Nor does Express Install. >> >> EI is useful for upgrading someone's older flash player to a new version, >> inline automatically inside the browser. It requires a browser restart, >> but >> gracefully takes the user back to the same url/page after restart. Again, >> it's only helpful for getting an existing install of flash upgraded, not >> the >> initial install. >> >> SWFObject has effective DETECTION logic for all the above cases, meaning >> it >> can tell you exactly what version, if any, they have, and let you choose >> what your page should do base on that. AC_xxx doesn't have that. For >> instance, you could say "if they have no flash, show them an image, if >> they >> have flash 8+ show them A.swf, and if they have flash 10+, show them >> B.swf". >> Again, impossible (or nearly so) with AC_xxx methods. >> >> SWFObject also provides effective means (via static publishing) of doing >> standards-compliant markup with no javascript support required for flash >> embedding. It gracefully enhances if javascript is in place by doing >> version >> checks, EI, etc, but the flash is there and embedded, cross-browser, even >> if >> no JS is present. Again, not something AC_xxx does as well, and certainly >> not as standards-compliant. >> >> SWFObject also has dynamic publishing, which means at any time of the life >> of a page, like in response to user actions or Ajax responses or whatever, >> you can dynamically embed a SWF on-the-fly into an existing page. This is >> incredibly powerful for RIA's and other complex web pages and web apps. >> AC_xxx cannot do it. >> >> SWFObject is also open-source, and has a vibrant support community and >> tens >> (or dare I say hundreds) of thousands of sites using it. Adobe's script on >> the other hand has been deprecated even by them, and had very little >> official support even when it was their script of choice. Starting with >> CS4 >> and going forward, Adobe chose to standardize on SWFObject 2.x, which >> means >> it's getting embedded support in all their authoring products which >> produce >> flash markup. Keep using AC_xxx and you'll be diverging from Adobe's >> standards now. Now that is use-at-your-own-risk. >> >> SWFObject has a good selection of companion projects/libraries/scripts >> which >> use, extend, and improve on the core, and cover just about any standard >> (and >> even most exotic) scenarios you could imagine with SWF embedding. AC_xxx >> was >> pretty narrow and limited in its use cases, and pretty inflexible to >> extension/adjustment. >> >> ----------------- >> >> As for the activeX warning... this shouldn't be happening, even on IE8 >> (default). It's either a case of non-default stricter settings (likely), >> or >> possibly a corrupt player install (also unfortunately quite possible). >> Here's one such thread on it: >> >> >> https://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.internetexplorer.beta&tid=8eabe917-2c0e-42de-98b1-afdd25857fa1&cat=&lang=&cr=&sloc=&p=1 >> >> In any case, SWFObject's test suite completely passes, with no errors or >> warnings, in IE8 (both winXP and Vista). I'd be curious to see if you get >> those warnings in YOUR browser by visiting our test pages, any of the >> links >> on here: http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/wiki/test_suite If so, it's >> something wrong with your system. We can help troubleshoot and get it >> corrected, if you want. >> >> If you change your mind and want to join the movement of SWFObject, we'd >> love to have you and help with any issues you have. If you continue to >> make >> your judgments based on a cursory first glance and misinformation, I wish >> you the best of luck in the AC_xxx wild-wild-west. :) >> >> --Kyle >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "hendra" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:28 AM >> To: "SWFObject" <[email protected]> >> Subject: back to AC_RunActiveContent.js >> >> > >> > I was looking for something that can automatically install flash >> > player from the browser. Then I came across express install, then I >> > came across SWF Object.. After spending hours to understand what it >> > does, I finally decided just to go ahead with AC_RunActiveContent.js >> > which I used in the first place. I don't seem to be able to find any >> > usefullness using SWF Object. >> > And btw, both static and dynamic method in SWF Object 2.1 triggered >> > the activeX warning in IE 8. If you could fix that, I might consider >> > using SWF Object one day when the day I understand what it is useful >> > for :) >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SWFObject" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
