|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adobe Flash article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Adobe Flash. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Adobe Flash at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|Swfdec was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 07 March 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Adobe Flash. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|Criticism of Adobe Flash was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 03 January 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Adobe Flash. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|Flash intro was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 27 October 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Adobe Flash. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Adobe Flash received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
The info box at the top right lists the developer of Flash as being Adobe, "formerly Macromedia". While it is factually true that Macromedia was the developer of Flash before Adobe bought out Macromedia and thus became the next developer, the statement implies that perhaps Adobe itself was formerly known as Macromedia, which is not true. There should be a better way to say this to clear up this ambiguity. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
attempts to prevent reader confusion about adobe/shockwave flash (with and without "player")
I'm completely confused by the recent revert. I specifically accepted the correction of my error (which had consisted of saying that Adobe Flash [instead of Adobe Flash Player] is still called Shockwave Flash in Firefox) and used that friendly correction in my new edit, which was not at all the same. On the contrary, this new edit correctly said When this article talks about the file format Shockwave Flash, this should not be confused with the Adobe Flash Player plugin, called "Shockwave Flash" in Firefox for historical reasons. Perhaps the reverter would prefer a shorter addition to the hatnote, changing the current
- Not to be confused with Adobe Flash Player or Adobe Flash Professional.
- Not to be confused with Adobe Flash Player (called "Shockwave Flash" in Firefox) or Adobe Flash Professional.
and adding the longer clarification into the article when it talks about Shockwave Flash?
Bias and criticism
Gosh! What a lot of negative bias this article had and probably still has. A good 70% of the content was simply complaining about missing features, broken features, outdated bugs and shortcomings, security issues, accessibility issues, and so on.
I've moved all of the obviously negative content into a new section called "Criticism". Please do NOT simply move everything into sections falsely titled "User experience" or "Availability". Sections that discuss the feature set of the platform and available software (authoring tools, playback tools) have been moved just below the discussion on formats supported (FLA, SWF, etc).
I've merged and cleaned up what content I can, and attempted to add some meagre information on application development on Flash, since the entire article simply goes on rambling about "animation" and "graphics" and treats "Flash content" as if it were simply "Toon Boom for the web". Flash is similar to the .NET platform in that both support app development, and Flash/AIR takes it further by making apps run multi-platform. All of this is not covered in the article.
I don't know where to begin, but the negative bias is obvious, and the lack of information takes this bias further by offering an incomplete and inappropriate image of the Flash platform and the possibilities offered by the same.
Update to Adobe Flash security section needed?
For the third time in two weeks, Adobe Flash has had to patch a Zero-day exploit. I don't see anything about that in the article. My source is here: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/02/yet-another-flash-patch-fixes-zero-day-flaw/--22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This article looked like it had been written in the late nineties. Every para only spoke of creating "animations" and "interactive animations" with Flash. Fast forward to 2015. Flash supports mobile games using Adobe AIR and Stage3D (Angry Birds and FarmVille are built with Flash, BTW). Flash supports apps with Flash Builder, FlashDevelop and other IDEs. Flash is a huge platform like Microsoft .NET that can be used to build apps, games, tools and whatnot.
Demise? Everything in the article seems to show "Flash is dead". Idiots. More than 1 billion video games powered by AIR have been downloaded from app stores. Newgrounds is a hugely popular website dedicated to online Flash gaming. AdventureQuest is another good example of the popularity of Flash-based online gaming.
For everyone who seems to misunderstand how "alive and kickin'" Flash is, I recommend reading these:
I've therefore updated the lead, fleshed out a complete history section and more, to indicate that Flash has been, can be, and will be used to build apps, games and a ton of more content. Keep rockin' with Flash.
I'm on a roll. 50+ consecutive revisions later, you have the following new/heavily improved sections:
Feel free to expand, improve or fix 'em. Section blanking will not be taken lightly.
Why on earth was the Availability info under the Criticism section? Flash is actively developed for desktop (FP, AIR) and mobile (AIR). Of course, Flash websites cannot play on mobile devices and that is appropriately indicated with another section under Criticism.
Before I moved the "device support" info into the new Availability section, it looked like FP/AIR was completely unavailable on both PC and mobile. Is this done on purpose to support the "anti-flash" sentiment that has been floating around for some time? (OccupyFlash? "Please uninstall Flash from your web browser because Flash is dead"). Ridiculous.