>> ^acidSpine:

I don't own an iPhone but don't they do this stuff already?

There's no flash playback or plugins for iPhone, that's what the fuss is about

>> ^blankfist:

Most mouseover events are antiquated practices.

Mouseover is still used everywhere; it's not antiquated at all. I know what you're getting at though; most people probably would think of the cheesy rollever effects when they think of what mouseover is used for.

Check the menu at the top of this page for an example; and every link here has a :hover style to slightly change the colour. It's a fairly standard and good UI practice to give feedback.

Where mouseover is mostly used though is in combination with click. Think of any UI that uses drag and drop - it's good practice to give feedback on what you're going to drop onto and mouseover is used to trigger that feedback.

On most OS', mouseover just about any UI element and you'll get feedback

Click then mouseover is supported on most capacitive touch devices (ie drag with your finger). Some implement non selected mouseover by allowing you to touch anywhere on the screen (that doesn't react to a hold event) then move your finger around. This isn't completely intuitive though, and flash apps that use non clicked hover will likely have to be changed or suffer usability problems on a touchscreen.

>> ^dag:

I have one question - So much of Flash uses an "on hover" function. How is that managed on a touch screen?
Honestly I like the Adobe tools in general and Flash as a creative tool- it would be nice though, if they could make the switch and have it output to HTML 5 Canvas, instead of compiled closed binaries.
I shouldn't be against Flash- after all, it's been very good to VideoSift- but I do think the writing is on the wall that we're moving to an open standards plug-in free world.


By "on hover" I take it you mean the mouse event for mouseover where the cursor is over an object. I don't think mouseovers will be necessary for Flash on touchscreens, and are things that can be ignored completely.

Most mouseover events are antiquated practices. Back in the day, everything was html hot links where the link was blue and rolling over it would change it to different color to alert the user that it was clickable. We've grown passed that, and with touchscreens there's no need for it.

Mouse events like Click and Move will be useful.

I agree they should focus on Flash as a wrapper for games and apps. The reason being that browsers are supporting HTML5 video more and more and the benefit of flash video will become less important.

Games and richer, less traditional UI's are something that browsers cannot do very well and won't be able to do for several years to come. Javascript is getting faster and faster but still comes nowhere near the performance of Flash and other embedded plugins for complex applications.

The other benefit of Flash (and Air) is it's ability to be deployed as a self executing application; it doesn't need to be a browser plugin. That allows rapid development of multiplatform applications using existing skills. It also provides proprietary encapsulation for those who need it; unlike Javascript.

Right now there's a fairly large disagreement going on between Adobe and Apple; the depths of which aren't well known by most users. As most people know, the iPhone (and iPad) are closed platforms that only allow vetted applications to be distributed through the App Store. This arbitrarily places Apple in the supply chain so they can take a slice of the action. This also involves developers having to pony up just to make their apps available; not even Microsoft squeezes their customers that tightly.

With this in mind it makes business sense to disallow flash in the browser as that has the potential to undermine that revenue.

What's less known is Apple's recent changes to their App Store/iTunes TOS. They are now disallowing apps that were built with third party developer tools. All apps must essentially be created directly by using their own Cocoa Touch API, and are not allowed to be developed with an abstracted framework. This has disallowed stand alone applications built with Flash (and other platforms) to be distributed through the App Store.

They actually implemented this change right after Adobe announced that they had their iPhone app wrapper up and running and would be releasing it with Flash 10.1, allowing devs to distribute standalone Flash apps on the iPhone and Android.

So why would Apple go out of it's way to prevent Flash apps (and apps built with other frameworks) in the App Store while they are allowed on Android?

As this change allows Apple to limit developers to having to work specifically with Cocoa Touch which prevents them from building multiplatform applications with the same code. As iPhone/iPad is currently a leading platform this will encourage developers to target development for them first; and then port to other platforms later. Apple are hoping that many developers won't bother porting them at all. That's quite a deep method of vendor lock in.

As someone who is starting to look at developing an app (a game, and not using Flash) for mobile I've decided not to develop for iPhone/iPad. I don't like them dictating the technology that I should use; rather than letting me choose the best tools for the job. If all other platforms will happily accept apps as the developer chose to develop it, then all the better for their users.

My hope is that with other developers feeling this way; and with the speed of development and the feature sets provided by Flash, Air, and other frameworks like the 3D game engine Unity; this will result in many more appealing applications appearing on Android and other platforms that drive customers away from Apple.

This may teach Apple that they've gotten too big for their boots and lead to them loosening their grip on developers; and in turn, their customers.

At which point developers can click a few buttons and deploy their existing apps to iPhone and iPad; welcoming their users to the 'Mobile Platform' rather than the 'Apple Platform'.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I have one question - So much of Flash uses an "on hover" function. How is that managed on a touch screen?

Honestly I like the Adobe tools in general and Flash as a creative tool- it would be nice though, if they could make the switch and have it output to HTML 5 Canvas, instead of compiled closed binaries.

I shouldn't be against Flash- after all, it's been very good to VideoSift- but I do think the writing is on the wall that we're moving to an open standards plug-in free world.

No one uses telegraphs. Also, no one speaks saying period of full stop at the end of a sentence. I was merely stating the outdated nature of both words and how the applicability to a national background is meaningless.

>> ^Arg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop
also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taqEc8keI5M>> ^Sigh:
Who says period? I'm american and I know noone who says that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop
also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taqEc8keI5M>> ^Sigh:

Who says period? I'm american and I know noone who says that.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Seems quite funny that the same type of people who lament about the lack of Flash are generally also the same type of people who gripe about the use of Flash in websites. Oh god- won't someone please think of the animated pizza menus!

Yes, Flash is used for video on the web- but HTML 5 video is progressing faster than you think. You can thank Apple for getting us out of the corner we painted ourselves into in making a video format "standard" that is completely proprietary and owned by one company, Adobe®.

So yeah- thanks Apple.

>> ^kagenin:

How much is Photoshop going for nowadays? With the money you save on using the GIMP, you could invest in faster hardware (an SSD drive would improve performance to the point where the speed differences between PS and the GIMP are barely noticeable). I'd rather keep the money for myself, rather than line Adobe's pockets. Besides, Adobe needs to get off their ass, and give Opera the code they need to update the Wii Internet browser's Flash plug-in. v7 is practically archaic, and only a handful of sites use backup applets for the older flash versions out there.
Besides, the GIMP is open source. If you want a better Content-Aware fill, write your own.


The piont is that photoshop is aimed at profesoinals , and you would earn the money back very fast making it cost afecctive.

The gimp is realy good for people doing art for fun. less than 1 logo job , or basic peace of web content would probably cover the cost of photoshop for most people , and after that u have something thats far faster and wider used than the gimp.

as i said though open source is gr8 and maby we will get to a piont where the gimp can compere with photoshop in a profesoinal inviroment.

After the PS video the other day, I grabbed the Resynthesizer plugin and tried it out in a number of different situations. At no point did it produce even mildly believable results. Let me clarify that... The synthesized imagery can sometimes be very good quality and very believable, but doesn't fit in with the surrounding picture. In some cases the synthesized imagery is just terrible all on its own.

The good news is, I think the work done so far on Resynthesizer is good work and it just needs to be developed further to catch up with Adobe. The buzz Adobe has created around CAF is also likely to get Resynth some new developers as it hasn't been in active development for a couple years, I think.

How much is Photoshop going for nowadays? With the money you save on using the GIMP, you could invest in faster hardware (an SSD drive would improve performance to the point where the speed differences between PS and the GIMP are barely noticeable). I'd rather keep the money for myself, rather than line Adobe's pockets. Besides, Adobe needs to get off their ass, and give Opera the code they need to update the Wii Internet browser's Flash plug-in. v7 is practically archaic, and only a handful of sites use backup applets for the older flash versions out there.

Besides, the GIMP is open source. If you want a better Content-Aware fill, write your own.

It's real. Image completion has been an active part of the computer vision and computer graphics communities for a decade now. I'm glad to see Adobe is finally implementing this. They have good researchers working for them so it was only a matter of time. Microsoft even had a version of this in their Digital Image Pro software. It would be nice if they attributed the ideas, but that's not as flashy I suppose.

I would say that what Adobe has cooked up here is quite well engineered, but not fundamentally different from the things that have been in the literature for 6 or 7 years. I would also guess that they've chosen their examples well, and you'll be disappointed when you try it in other situations.

Here's some of the examples of this from the literature:
1999: http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/people/efros/research/EfrosLeung.html (scroll to the bottom, this is the one that started the texture / image completion craze in the vision / graphics communities)
2004: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=67276 (more sophisticated heuristics about how to propagate texture)
2007: http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/scene-completion/ (searches the internet for similar scenes to use to patch up holes in images)

You've convinced me Adobe, I'll upgrade via PirateBay as soon as it's out.

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/03/caf_in_ps.html
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/10/video_new_from_adobe_labs_content-aware_fill.html

They've been showing this off for a while. If it's bullshit, it's Adobe's bullshit.

Also, I bet the programming isn't especially voluminous, but the algorithms are probably insanely advanced. The code itself would probably be highly recursive, so you wouldn't need a lot of lines.