Accessibility: Is a CC button deaf-friendly?

May 22, 2009 burakk

You learn something each day, sometimes it has a big impact.

Suppose you are designing a FLV video player. Unless the player is to be extremely simple, you will want to support displaying closed-captions/subtitles, either because you are truly accessibility conscious and care about it, or, because you find the idea of displaying subtitles for a foreign language movie cool. Surely, you will want to cover all bases.

Lets start adding captions support to the design:

  1. You will need to have a button, labeled 'CC', that toggles display of captions.
  2. Not all FLVs will have associated captions, so a feature can be to hide the CC button (rather than displaying it in disabled state) when there are no captions available. This will also provide more space for other controls, a slider may benefit from the extra space. [1]
  3. Some people will want to start with captions-on, so you will provide the programmatic interface to start with the CC button already clicked once.

Can you think of any other option? (Other than supporting multiple language tracks) Anything missing?

Until some minutes ago, I wouldn't know the missing option, and the CC button would be the symbol of my accessibility support.

Missing option is having captions on all the time without the CC button to turn them off.

What good is that for? Obviously you could have thought about this, but why would you want it?

Because, at a site for the deaf (which is what accessibility is really all about in this case), a CC button is not considered deaf-friendly. Captions must be present and displayed at all times [2].

Just like the way you (and I) think, 'let's not display the CC button because there won't be captions for some FLVs', you should also think, 'let's not display the CC button because there are times there will be captions all the time and they will never be turned off'.

A FLV player with a CC button, sure, is accessible. But if you really care about accessibility, you should have the option for not displaying that button.

That's what I learned today, from one of our Captionate [3] customers, who is creating web sites targeting deaf consumers, and who himself is also deaf. He is passionate about this. For him, it's not an option to have the CC button displayed, it's inappropriate, it's not deaf-friendly, end of story.

Could I ever, by myself, have thought about supporting captions without a CC button? Maybe… Could I ever have shared the passion about this? I don't think so.

Nothing is as simple as it looks, accessibility included.

[1] Obviously, if you have designed a player that works with different skins, you will want to have skins without a CC button (no captions support) and skins with a CC button that support captions. For the sake of this discussion, this is irrelevant.

[2] 'They can embed captions onto video in that case' will be too shallow thinking,

[3] We do not provide a player for deploying captioned FLVs with Captionate. We do not have a FLV player product.

Share
Captionate, Flash, MG , , Comments Off

What should be the new name for Flash Authoring Tool…

May 20, 2009 burakk

I hated the Flash Builder name change and found it totally wrong, it turns out some of my reasoning was caused by different understanding of what Flash and Flash Platform means. I've updated my definitions in my previous post, but my concerns about increased confusion are still valid.

If Flash Builder name is indeed to clear up confusion, logical next step is renaming Flash authoring tool, AKA Flash Professional or Flash IDE (or simply Flash before Flash Builder).

Flash is currently a catch-all name, can refer to a SWF file, Flash Player (AKA Flash Platform in marketing talk), the IDE and more. It's comparatively easy to change the authoring tool name.

Other tools by Adobe, that start with 'Adobe Flash', does not end there. Sure, now current usage is becoming 'Flash Professional' but this also creates its own problems (see below) and it sounds like it's part of the version, not the actual product name.

Flash Professional is the premiere tool for creating Flash content. The day it's gone, will be the day sealing certain death for future of Flash. It's more than an animation tool, or a designer tool. It's a complete development tool, which also appeals to designers. Some Flex/Flash Builder users don't get this. I can understand them, they just don't know what Flash Professional is and so they cannot appreciate it.

I think, in all fairness, Flash Professional is still a good name, which needs no change. But Flash Builder users, who think they are the professional users and the Eclipse plug-in is the professional tool, don't like how 'Flash Professional' sounds more 'professional' and above 'Flash Builder'. So, something must be done, sooner or later.

Suggestions coming from Flash Builder users like 'Flash Designer' and 'Flash Animator' are IMHO quite unacceptable. 'Flash Studio' might have been a good name but it's sure to cause more confusion as initial expectation will be that 'Studio' includes 'Builder'.

The new name, should not be unfair to the tool and it should not sound more professional than Flash Builder. It should not be too different from what it is today. Tough job.

But I think I have a good suggestion, something only Adobe can do:

Adobe Flashshop

That's it. Everybody knows Photoshop and this name IMHO fits like a glove and has a good vibe. What do you think?

Share
Flash , , , 6 Comments

Updating my definitions… Done.

May 19, 2009 burakk

In Flash world, even the most obvious and simple word 'Flash' has a dubious meaning. After online and off-line reactions to my recent posts, I have updated my definitions (actually they are not formal or complete definitions, but what you need to really understand when the 'term' is used unless the context strongly suggests another meaning).

Following may seem obvious to some (kudos to them), but it took me some time to come up with this. Hope it helps. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Flash
1 SWF file.
2 Adobe authoring tool for creating Flash Platform content (current version is Flash CS4 Professional)

SWF File
1 A file that runs on Flash Platform

Flash File
1 SWF file. Flash.

Flash Platform
1 Flash Player. Runs SWF files.
2 Flash Player and related tools by Adobe.

Flash Player
1 Flash Platform. Runs SWF files.
2 Actual file which implements the Flash Platform functionality. Most of the time either the browser plug-in or stand-alone executable version.

Adobe Flash xxx
1 An application by Adobe, which creates Flash Platform related content.

Flash Professional
1 Adobe authoring tool for creating Flash Platform content (current version is Flash CS4 Professional)

Flash Builder
1 Former Flex Builder. An Eclipse plug-in, by Adobe, for creating Flash Platform content.

Notes:
- After 'Flex Builder' got renamed as 'Flash Builder', 'Flash Pro' is the least confusing way to refer to the authoring tool which was simply known as 'Flash'.
- Expect a name change to 'Flash Pro' sooner or later, as 'Flash Builder' developers are unhappy how 'Flash Professional' sounds more professional than 'Flash Builder'.

Share
Flash , , , 3 Comments

What’s wrong with the Flash Platform?

May 18, 2009 burakk

When Microsoft bought FoxPro, leading database app of the day, in 1992, I remember, an intriguing question among programming community and geeks was whether MS will use the Watcom compiler, which was used for building FoxPro to that day, a compiler which was state of art at the time and better, or, use their own inferior MS compiler to build the next version of FoxPro… I never followed-up, and don't know the answer, still the question remains as a fundamental one. (FoxPro was later renamed as Visual FoxPro and died in 2007 at version 9).

A platform needs to be taken seriously. For quite some time Flash (whatever you meant by it) was seen as a toy for creating animations for the web, including the ones that made you look for the 'skip into' link and really annoying advertisements that hid content. Most of the time this was true.

Things improved in time, but it's always hard to change initial perceptions.

I'm now skipping pages of info that may bring the reader up to date with Flash history, for the sake of coming to my point.

I may be seeing what is not there… But I see the Flash Platform as the main platform of the future: OS-wise cross-platform, on both desktop and web, and on other devices… "Flash Platform" is not "Flash" (whatever you understand by it). You can't consider something as a platform just because you can write RIAs for it or it has a desktop component, or just because you have a few different editions. It's bigger than that. It has to be…

Java started with the promise of making apps that you write once and run everywhere. As I see it, it failed to achieve this. I see Flash replacing Java, achieving this initial goal. I see Java (not JavaFX) as a rival to Flash as a platform…

The developer types who were expected to jump into Flash train with Flex were mainly Java developers, as Java is also a scripting language, just like actionscript.

How do you convince a Java developer that Flash (platform) is better? Will you have any answer when he reminds you that 'recommended professional developer tool', now named 'Flash Builder', is just a plug-in for Eclipse [1], which is build primarily in Java? Will you have an answer when he mentions that the AS3 compiler is also build in Java?

If I were a Java developer, at best I'd say Flash might be better for 'animation and stuff' only. If Flash Platform relies on Java, then it's inferior to Java, as a platform, no need for further discussion.

I don't think embracing Java is an option for Flash Platform. Flash will be the platform of choice and the better one, or it will be a toy animation platform (with some scripting capability). I don't consider being open source or not coming from MS as valid reasons for embracing Java. Also I cannot picture a stable co-existence, with similar usage ratios, being 'second best' is not an option I will be content with.

With AS3 and JIT, as I had written before, I was hoping the AS3 compiler would be in AS3… AFAIK, this has not happened yet. For this reason, professionally as a programmer, I don't consider actionscript as mature. If actionscript is a serious language (even though it's a scripting language), it has to have a compiler written in actionscript (this is my idea for maturity, you are welcome to disagree).

As I see it, for success, Flash Platform should get rid of any reliance on rival platforms (Java, .Net etc.) as soon as possible. (3rd party tools are OK, after all, they are additional tools. I think a platform should provide at least basic building tools, sufficiently advanced, that does not rely on rival platforms. [As soon as possible may mean years - but I believe this should be the agreed goal]).

Silverlight is not a rival to Flash Platform, .Net is. Silverlight is the toy animation [2] part of (web part of) .Net Platform. I believe Flash, as a platform, should have bigger goals than beating that.

People ridiculed Microsoft, when they used Flash rather than SilverLight for promoting some stuff. I'm surprised I'm not seeing anyone mentioning Java use with Flash. Is Java a better programming platform, and Flash Platform is really only a sub-platform for animation (and maybe minor RIA stuff)? Is this the planned and expected future role for the Flash Platform?

Is it because it's so obvious that Flash will ditch Java use when the time comes, that nobody mentions it? or are my expectations for the Flash Platform unrealistically high? I wonder.

I can write more, but I think I made my point.

Watcom C compiler went to Open Source heaven in 2000. Borland C++, which was considered better than Microsoft Visual C++ compiler (MSVC) by many in its time, died even before Watcom. Whatever route MS took then, when building next FoxPro version in 1992 doesn't really matter now. Today, MSVC is alive as it can be at version 10 (as preview, to be released)…

(And I now think blogging more is sure to make me unpopular, so I will stop).

[1] I don't mean to show disrespect to "Flex Builder" developers (both actual developers and people using it). Sorry if I sounded rude,  it was to make my point clear. I think "Flex Builder" should be a native or Flash application, in principle. I don't 'demand' it to be done 'now', but I believe this is something everybody involved should know and agree and expect as a realistic future goal: A better IDE than Eclipse in every way, written in actionscript, running way better than any Java app can run, in Flash VM… (Same applies for the AS compiler).

[2] Obviously SilverLight (or Flash) is more than just a 'toy for animation'. The usage is for making my point, hopefully, more clear.

Share
Flash, Flex 8 Comments

Why I don’t think Flash Builder is a good name…

May 17, 2009 burakk

A man applies to court to legally change his name. Judge asks "What's your current name?", man replies "John Shit". Judge says "I see why you want the change. What would you like your new name to be?". Man says "James"…

I admit there was some confusion because "Flex Builder" could actually build more than Flex Framework based work etc. I admit another name be it "Flash Builder" or "XYZ" will help cut this confusion.

But the name "Flash" already means many things to many different people. Confusion around the word "Flash" is probably more deep than any Flex related confusion.

What is Flash? To me it's still the Flash authoring tool. For some it's the Flash Player. For too many people it's 'a SWF file'. Does anyone take 'Flash' as 'Flash Platform'? I don't think more than a few if any, you need to explicitly refer to it as 'Flash Platform'.

So is 'Flash' a 'platform'? Has 'Flash' become a 'platform'? I'd say 'yes' but not in 'words'. Confusion rules. And we are to welcome another member.

There are some catchy words, sometimes software companies use for all their applications, like 'Smart', 'Cute', 'Easy' etc. Then when they release any application they will use the cute name first, as a trade mark, like Smart Editor, Smart DVD Ripper, Smart Doc Shredder… I don't dislike the practice, it's totally fine and we can even do that in the future (if we can find a name not taken). I think this is what 'Flash' is becoming. Not a platform but a cute name, a buzz word you find on (hopefully only) Flash related Adobe applications.

I don't want see the word 'Flash' like this. I want it to refer to the platform.

If you refer to a "SWF file" as "Flash", then the word "Flash" can never mean the platform. This is something I strongly believe. Do you think someone when referring to a "SWF file" as a "Flash file" will ever even unconsciously think he is actually referring to a "Flash Platform file"? Do you ever think of a "GIF platform" when you refer to a GIF file?

'Flash Builder' is a better name than 'Flex Builder' in a sense. But if 'Flash Builder' is building Flash, then Flash is the SWF file, not the platform.

Does anyone remember how Microsoft guidelines urged developers for calling their applications as "XXX for Windows" and not as "Windows XXX"? (I assume they still do). Is it "MS Windows Word" or "MS Word for Windows"? Obviously when Windows was new this made more sense, it was totally normal someone would want to include the name "Windows" in their application name as "Windows XXX"… I hope you get my point.

If 'Flash' was a platform, then the new name should have been 'Builder for Flash', not 'Flash Builder' *.

This would have also caused confusion. Heck, it's still creating confusion if SWF refers to 'Shockwave Flash' or not. Unfortunately, we have to accept that 'some' confusion is here to stay. With correct moves you make it less, with wrong ones you create more.

There are levels of confusion. To the clueless, a guitar (with 6 strings) can look like the same as a bass guitar (with 4 strings) (I have actually seen this happen more than once). You can either call all guitars as 'bass guitars' which will, on the surface look like it has cut the confusion (but will create more in the future). Or you can accept that level of confusion as a fact of life, that cannot be fixed for the clueless at that level (At least you should avoid a move that will create more confusion than it fixes)…

I want to finish with a positive note. It's good that, myself included, now not many people think it's still necessary to avoid the word 'Flash' to make 'Flex, Flex Builder' taken seriously (by people with Java background etc. who may think Flash is 'animation with a skip intro button').

Another positive note: It seems most people, many fellow bloggers I respect, don't agree with me on this one. This means probably I'm wrong and this is a good thing because Adobe won't change the naming policy because I don't agree, Flash Builder name is here to stay. Hopefully, I'm wrong and the name change will be better for the Flash platform.

* I don't think 'Builder for Flash' is a better name, or 'for Flash' use will be better. My point is that you shouldn't use the 'platform' name as a prefix to applications that create content for that platform. If I were to make the decision, probably the next version of Flex Builder would be called 'Adobe RedLight'…

Share
Flash, Flex , , , 6 Comments

ASV is 9 today…

May 16, 2009 burakk

So I haven’t been posting lately.

I was obviously busy, but main reason was (as I have written before) I didn’t want to sound like trying to sell more copies of ASV using my blog, and I didn’t want to post off-topic, but any on topic useful bits of info I could share was un-shareable. What was left was Adobe press release like news, like the recent Flash CS4 10.0.0.2 update, but I decided I didn’t want that long ago.

Of course, I can always post about hot topics of the day, like recent Flex Builder name change to Flash Builder. Well, I hate it and I think it’s wrong. Adobe is exploiting the ‘Flash’ name and I think it will not help the ‘Flash’ brand or the platform. A totally, absolutely wrong move – will cause lots of confusion in the long run* (so I totally disagree with KP on this one). OK I said it, it won’t change anything (other than maybe some people with strong feelings about this will start not having good thoughts about me).

A few months ago I even did an off-topic test blog to see if I can really post at least daily. I saw that I could.

Anyway…

Today is ASV’s 9th anniversary. I had to post, because I realized if I didn’t, some people might get wrong ideas about us, ASV, ASV’s future etc. We are on pre-release for quite some time now, for various reasons, but we are working and alive just as we always have been (We released last pre-release ASV just 16 days ago with improved SWF 10 and AS3 support). Second of all, I call myself ‘ASV Guy’, so this makes this post appropriate. And 9 years is quite a long time for any product.

I don’t know how often I will post here, hopefully my next post will not be exactly this day next year…

* Unless Adobe is getting ready to ‘phase out’ Flash IDE, the authoring tool, which would be a worse (or probably the worst) move and Lee Brimelow says this is not the case.

Share
MG, Misc. , , , , 3 Comments

A Flash of Doom: An Alchemy That Works!

November 24, 2008 burakk

Awesome! One hundred percent pure, old-fashioned, home-grown, plain awesome…

Adobe released Alchemy preview version on Labs some days ago. I haven’t even yet had the chance to download it. AFAIK, it lets you compile C/C++ code to AS3 for Flash Player 10. It’s bound to have some limitations (but not much apparently), and I don’t want to talk about it more until I know more. (Update: You can get more info at Branden Hall’s post titled Understanding Adobe Alchemy).

Then I saw the post titled Play Doom Online on FlashMagazine. There, there was a link to port of Doom to Flash. (I must say that I don’t agree with Jens that Doom created the FPS genre of 3D games. I think it was Wolfenstein 3D). Anyway, at first it didn’t work. I do all my browsing in Virtual PC and in there the virtual graphics card has even less 3D support (actually, none I think) than my main graphics card which I choose as the cheapest card available as I don’t play any 3D games and don’t need any 3D acceleration at all. So I suspected if that was an issue. I also tried IE6 but couldn’t get past the first screen.

24 hours later, I tried again with IE6, failed, then with Firefox, finally, Doom appeared before my eyes. There’s no music but it was totally playable even in Virtual PC, on a real computer which can be considered quite ordinary today.

Doom

Of course, it was not the 3D that impressed me, I have seen my share of impressive 3D stuff done in Flash. I have also seen very successful, though I must admit not many, near-exact game ports to actionscript, AS2 actually. The magic here is Alchemy, what the author, Mike Welsh, wrote: ‘Recompiled from the original source by Mike, using Alchemy!’ (Of course, I think Mike, as the alchemist, did a splendid job here, kudos to him!).

This is big! I’d say Alchemy will be a key step in Flash Platforms evolution. Great work Adobe!

For Alchemy some new bytecode instructions were introduced to AVM2 (see Scott Petersen slides PDF). I’m not sure what this will mean for ASV. If we will be dealing with a full featured optimizing C/C++ compiler, decompiling back to C/C++ will be really hard work for us, that I can say…

[Update (2010): See http://asvguy.com/2010/05/officially-announcing-azoth.html for free Windows Alchemy Opcodes Injector]

Share
Flash, Flex , 2 Comments

SWF 10 Specs Available for Download

November 18, 2008 burakk

Wow, this was fast.

Emmy Huang announced the availability of updated SWF and FLV specs.

As for the action model of SWF 10, there were no changes from SWF 9. Considering that SWF 9 action model consisted of the DoABC tag which contained AS3/ABC data, this is hardly surprising. As far as I can see, the PDF that described ABC internals hasn’t been updated yet.

[Update note: Original link to Emmy's post was http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2008/11/swf_10_spec_available_and_flash_player_alpha_for_64-bit_linux_on_labs.html]

Share
Flash , , , , Comments Off

Flash CS4 Trial Available, for Download and on DVD

November 11, 2008 burakk

A few days earlier than expected, Flash CS4 trial is now available for download (at least 889 MB) or you can order CS4 Web Premium trial DVDs* for a small sum, though if you are not in the US, probably downloading will be the better choice.

Languages other than English are available too, and also Mac and Windows versions. Mac and non-English version downloads are significantly bigger (at 1.13 GB to 1.75 GB!). As stated in the FAQ, for Flash CS4 trial "…software do not include some features that depend on software licensed from parties other than Adobe.  For example, some codecs for encoding MPEG formats are available only with the full version of these products.". Trial period is 30 days starting with your installation.

You can win a CS4 suite (which includes Flash) at 25 Lines ActionScript Contest. You can also upgrade at CS3 upgrade pricing until February 28, 2009, from older versions including Macromedia Studio MX 2004, FlashMagazine reports (North America and for 'suites' only).

* Trial DVDs are not available for all languages. Japanese language trials will be available early December.

Share
Flash Comments Off

Flash CS4 is Shipping, Flash Player 10 Released

October 15, 2008 burakk

[End of post]

Click to continue reading “Flash CS4 is Shipping, Flash Player 10 Released”

Share
Flash Comments Off
WordPress Loves AJAX