As trends go through their natural cycle, the general public’s definition of ‘attractive’ websites alters. There’s no doubt that websites built in flash can be breath-taking. Wonderwall, AgencyNet 2.0 and Waterlife are a sweet reminder of the creativity and innovation that designers and multimedia developers are capable of.

However, while Adobe Flash provides what many ambiguously call the ‘wow factor’, it inevitably comes accompanied with unwanted baggage. The following are the main reasons why your website should not be built with Adobe Flash:

1. Lack of content management
   Websites nowadays are almost all CMS-driven. This means that the client or administrator can manage and maintain the content of the website instantly and without any technical knowledge. With the spread of Content Management Systems like WordPress and Drupal (both free and open-source), a website will never be considered of real value if its not constantly updated with fresh content (see my post on what makes a good website). With Flash, it’s almost impossible to have a proper CMS and therefore leaves you relying on a Flash developer to make any changes, and that within itself, is a tedious, time-consuming process. We’re at an age where sharing information has become as easy as tapping a button on your phone while on the road, the last thing we need is wasted (and costly) time on changes and updates
2. Search indexing and SEO
   There’s no real way for Google search to completely grasp the content of a Flash file. There are methods to give a general definition to the content, and therefore show up in some results, but for the most part, a Flash website’s left in the dark. Imagine putting so much effort in adding fresh, valuable content to your website as a social media tool to attract users, only for search engines to remain oblivious to it and therefore not bring you the interested crowd
3. Loading time and performance issues
   The main attraction in Flash is the reason behind its poor performance. Very rarely will you come across a website built in Flash that does not require significant time to load. And if it doesn’t, then it’s usually a lame, boring website that couldn’t been perfectly implemented with HTML and CSS instead. It is challenging to tolerate many seconds, and sometimes minutes, for a website to load
4. Lack of support across the different platforms
   When the iPhone first came out, users were too distracted with the eye candy to realize the lack of support for Flash. Now, with the overwhelming spread of the iPad, the inability to view flash websites in a number of devices has become a major issue of concern. In an open letter written in May, CEO Steve Jobs wanted to prove to the few doubters that Apple’s sole interest is to close all of their products, make them proprietary, and enforce its own way. The announcement also served as an indication that we might never see Flash playing on any of Apple’s gadgets again. If your website is not showing up on iPhones, iPods and iPads, then you’re losing grip on your audience
5. Instability of Flash player
   Flash player has been known to crash across the different browsers. Firstly, there was the famous bug that caused issues with Flash player 10 on Firefox that many blamed the open-source browser for, but later, many using Internet Explorer and Windows 7 shared similar complaints. The fact that this happened after Flash has been around for years is worrying for the future

Moreover, the arrival of HTML5 and CSS3 (along with the usual jQuery plugins) facilitates the switch
It’s far from an identical replacement, but the combination of HTML5 and CSS3 is extremely promising. Amongst other features, together they provide simple ways of embedding video and audio into websites. You also get full control of the appearance and can make all sorts of movements, transitions and animations. In fact, there is an entire cartoon built using only HTML5, CSS3 and jQuery called the CSS3 Man. Here’s a presentation of how HTML5 and CSS3 will shape on the new Firefox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFmuNApHFec

Therefore, save yourself the hassle, be reachable, be light-wight and fast, appear correctly on all platforms, and avoid technical issues. It’s best to leave Flash behind and embrace the full potential of the alternatives while it’s a choice, before you’re forced to do so.

I had been contemplating for a while blogging with videos when my dear friend Ziad Aly talked me into considering putting together some YouTube webisodes for people to make use of. There are many advantages to talking about design and technology through a series of episodes on YouTube:

• Easier to portray information: It’s easier to share step-by-step tutorials with videos. Not to mention that it has become more effective (fewer people are willing to read articles)
• More exposure: Videos are much more likely to go viral than articles
• The Arabs on the Web: Which is by far the most important aspect. While there are more and more Arabs online, very few take part in providing content. In fact, most tutorials and resources are in English, making it difficult for Arabs who aren’t comfortable with the language. It would be great to help place the Arabs on the Web 2.0 map, and facilitate the exchange of information between them

A quick search through YouTube got me to Ana 3rby’s channel (an Egyptian as well). He has a very informative series on learning to use Photoshop. This is the first video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrwSOHP5QBc

I personally think it’s a great initiative, and hope to be able to partake in the near future.

Out of Adobe’s undisputed Fab Four on any web designer’s desktop (Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash and Dreamweaver), the one specifically for HTML and CSS is probably the most threatened. Indeed, replacing any of the first three is almost an impossibility (see my post on GIMP’s attempt to overthrow Photoshop). Finding an alternative to Dreamweaver, however, has become more of a reality.

And why not? After all, when you’re cutting up the design, laying out the XHTML, and writing up the CSS on your framework of choice (see my reviews on the 960 GS, Blueprint CSS, or 1kb CSS Grid), you don’t need an application for rocket science. The main reason why many designers stick to Dreamweaver, as oppose to opting for any of the open-source alternatives, is because a) it tags along other essential Adobe products in a Creative Suite, and b) it boasts some neat features. However, it remains an over-priced product for a relatively simple task.

Panic Coda

In comes Coda: a web development application that brings everything you need in a single window (Mac OS X window, that is). Firstly, at $99, it’s not the priciest of applications, given that you develop websites professionally. More importantly however, it packs some top-notch features:

• Subversion integration that allows you to synchronize your files
• An emotionally touching FTP client built into the sidebar. Browse a remote server, click on the file you choose to edit, and save to instantly update the remote file. No need to use a separate FTP client, a text-editor, or endless hours
• Live collaboration. That’s right! Who would’ve thought that you’d be able to work on the same code with someone else at the same time (granted the other person bought his or her own copy of Coda)
• Live preview that is built into the application, but is actually using Safari. Unlike Dreamweaver, you are viewing the page in a full browser, but without actually changing windows
• Built-in terminal if you ever need (doesn’t get in the way if you don’t)

The most important aspect is that it’s sleek. The interface makes you feel very comfortable as you’re creating color-coded magic. Doing everything locally is a breeze, and then editing remotely on the fly saves a lot more time than running around your FTP client and temporary text editor. Its performance is also more impressive than its Adobe counterpart.

FTP on the left sidebar, colored code in main area

The biggest disadvantage must be in its price tag. Even if it is cheaper than Dreamweaver, thus making it the clear winner, it is still $100 more expensive than the second best open-source option. When the likes of Aptana Studio learn from Panic’s baby and step up their game, then no one will have to pay anything to live a proper web development experience. Until then, we’ll take the money out of our savings. My condolences to Adobe Dreamweaver, you were great, but now it’s time to move on.

If you are in any way related to the design and/or multimedia realm, chances are you heavily rely on a handful of Adobe’s products. In fact, even the regular users with minimal technical knowledge naturally run applications such as Adobe Acrobat Reader, and more recently, Rich Internet Applications built on AIR. There is no doubt that with the acquisition of Macromedia in 2005, there has been very little competition in the different areas of the design and multimedia industries.

Adobe Photoshop Prices

Any web designer in particular is likely to be fully dependent on Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Flash, the later of which is by far the biggest gain from the Macromedia acquisition, as it brought the entire RIA industry into Adobe’s playground. As a freelancer, it only makes sense to purchase those applications, right? Well, with a total price tag of an incredible $2,300, it is of little surprise that the majority look to work around the hefty asking price. Sadly, millions of designers and web developers world wide rely on illegal copies of Adobe’s main money-makers, and it is not difficult to see why:

1. It is obviously a lot of cash, not the kind someone at the early stages of his or her freelancing career can dispose of
2. Following such an investment, as soon as the new version is out, the one you own becomes obsolete, and you would have to pay a significant amount to upgrade
3. It is easy to think that stealing a license is only temporary, until you have developed the capacity to live with the open-source alternatives (GIMP, Inkscape, etc.), or that you will be making more money in the future, allowing you to make such an investment

While there are many companies across Egypt and the Arab world that run bootleg copies of professional software, such an act is almost unheard of in the developed world. You’re very unlikely to be working for a design agency in the US, for example, and find that the Photoshop on your work computer is cracked or has by-passed activation. However in Egypt, for example, in the biggest ISPs and web development companies, it is common to see your colleague walk in with the good news that he or she has gotten a cracked version of the new Illustrator that has barely just come out in the US. A couple of hours later, everyone at the office is talking about their first experiences with the new product, after having made more copies for their personal PCs at home.

Adobe is clearly very aware of the situation. They know how over-priced their products are, as well as how easy it is to crack them, and how common it is to get a hold of illegal copies. Nevertheless, their strategy is to allow individuals to get their goods for free, students to grow up using them at close to nothing, but for companies to pay the full price. The idea is to have everyone addicted to them, and then force companies to purchase the licenses, because their designers are not willing to use GIMP, which would’ve saved loads of cash.

This all makes sense until you being the foreign companies into the equation. With thousands of agencies world-wide running illegal copies, Adobe is missing out on the chance to make much more profit. The theory would be that, just like anti-viruses have become significantly cheaper over the past 4 years or so, encouraging even the most loyal of software thieves to purchase original licenses, Adobe’s price reduction would help bring legit customers on board. If Photoshop, for example, was priced at $350 with a free upgrade, the number of legit users would at least triple. Even if you’re starting up your own agency or freelancing for the first time, that kind of money is recovered with the first project, and you get to match the newest version when it’s out. After that, they could make it more challenging to crack it (acknowledging that it is impossible to completely end it). Thus, many more people would not see it worth the hassle to skip the fee payment.

Judging from the progress over the past few years, it does not look like Adobe will rethink its pricing scheme anytime soon. However, they are clearly on the losing end as their bizarre price tags are encouraging millions everywhere to get a hold of them illegally, while many foreign companies will do the same, knowing they cannot get into trouble. Either way, besides four or five of their applications, Adobe’s programs have been defeated by open-source alternatives a while back, and the current survivors will soon follow.