8 Replies - 1739 Views - Last Post: 05 May 2011 - 05:46 AM
Posted 22 April 2011 - 11:57 AM
Can I get some opinions on this?
Posted 22 April 2011 - 04:37 PM
I would say that you will probably get the best looking and most responsive output when using Flash though. Additionally, you will have the most options on how the images are animated (3D, transitions, simple tweening, etc.).
It really just depends on what you want this to look like. If you simply want to have a thumbnail which displays a larger version of the image when clicked you could simply go with litebox, it has been around for quite some time and accomplishes just that.
On the other hand, if you are wanting to have something interesting like a 3D photo wall, or a sphere of images, or a slider which shows an iTunes-esque image with images on either side tilted back, (and the list goes on) then I would strongly suggest you use Flash.
Hopefully that helps
Posted 22 April 2011 - 04:56 PM
On the other side, people seem to be still hesitant to migrate from flash because of the browser independance they get. They can also hide their script from getting hijacked by the average user for various purposes with easy to use tools like greasemonkey. The amount of churn that html 5 still has ahead that requires standardization is also another factor.
So it is really up to you to figure out what your requirements are and whether going one way or the other makes or breaks the experience now and in the near future.
Posted 22 April 2011 - 05:21 PM
Posted 22 April 2011 - 08:50 PM
If you want the viewer available on say an iphone -- flash is not the right tool. But if that doesn't matter, and you want a more "flashy" gallery, you might want to go with flash.
So it's up to you, to decide the best tool for what you are trying to achieve based on the requirements/expectations.
Flash on the wane is kind of a myth really, I've had an increase in the amount of flash work in the past year and at a higher rate.
Flash Jobs Increase
I think flash not being on the iphone/ipad and the apple snubbing can make it seem as flash is on the decline, but there is certainly more work at a higher rate than 2 years ago. So, if that means it's waning, I'm missing something.
There are still alot of companies that are pumping more cash into flash based development. What gets missed in all this is that the real reason Apple doesn't want flash on the iDevices is that it devalues the App Store - which means money from their pocket.
But it will happen soon enough. Apple wasn't going to allow flash developed apps into the App Store, and that changed. How long can they allow Android devices to exclusively have a large portion of the web that an iDevice can't access at all ?
What did backward compatibility do for Windows growth back in the day ? What exactly requires us to leave behind such a large amount of software/code that is still relevant ? iDevices can easily have the same filter that you can have in your browser that requires you to activate flash content on a page. Let the user choose.
Stepping off my soapbox!
I love my iPod touch and I'll have an iPad soon. But, not being able to have flash content on them, is more an annoyance than a step forward in my opinion.
Posted 25 April 2011 - 12:30 AM
Posted 05 May 2011 - 05:46 AM