Via Forbes
-----
HTML5 is a hot topic, which is a good thing. The problem is that 99% of what’s been written has been about HTML5 replacing Flash. Why is that a problem? Because not only is it irrelevant, but also it prevents you from seeing the big picture about interoperability.
But first things first. A few facts:
- You do not build a web site in Flash. The only way to build a website is to use HTML pages, and then to embed Flash elements in them.
- Flash as been around for more than 12 years. It is a de facto standard for the publishing industry. (No Flash = no advanced features in banners).
- HTML5 does not officially exist (yet). Rather, it’s a specification in working draft, scheduled for publication in 2014.
- Less than half of installed browsers are HTML5 compliant, with different levels of compliance.
- The video element in HTML5 is perfect for basic video players, but Flash and Silverlight are much more suitable for advanced video feature (streaming, caption, interactive features and miscellaneous video effects).
These are not interpretations or opinions. These are facts. The truth is writing about the agony of Flash is an easy way to draw readers, a much easier way than to adopt a nuanced stance. And this is why we read so many garbage about HTML5 vs. Flash. (For an accurate description, please read HTML5 fundamentals).
All this said, HTML5 will indeed replace Flash in certain circumstances, specifically Light interface enhancements. To explain this, we must go back in time: HTML’s specifications evolved over 10 years, thus web developers wishing to offer an enhanced experience had no choice but Flash. In recent years, we began to see Flash used for custom fonts and transitions. But HTML has at last evolved into HTML5 (and CSS3), which allow web designers to use custom fonts, gradients, rounded corners and transitions, among other uses. So in this particular case (light interface enhancements), Flash is rapidly losing ground to a much more legitimate HTML5.
So if HTML5 is more suitable for light interface enhancements, this leaves rooms for Flash to do what it does best: heavy interface enhancements, vector-based animations, advanced video and audio features, and immersive environments.
To make a long story short: Flash has a 10 years advance over HTML. This technology isn’t better but because it’s owned by a single company has the entire control on its innovation rate. I have no doubt that one day HTML will have the same capabilities as Flash today, but in how many years? Don’t mistake me. Not every site needs Flash or an equivalent RIA technology: Amazon, Ebay and Wikipedia built their audiences with classic HTML, as did millions of web sites. So for the sake of precision: I am not an Adobe ambassador nor I am a web standards’ ayatollah. I am just a web enthusiast enjoying what the web best has to offer, whether powered by standard or proprietary technologies. Moreover, standardization is not a simple process, because what we refer to as standards (from MP3 and JPEG to h.264) are in fact technologies owned by private companies or consortiums.
Then, there is the mobile argument. If iOS and Android provide users with an HTML5 compliant browser, what about Blackberry? Symbian? WebOS? Feature phones? Low cost tablets? If interoperability and wider reach are mandatory, then maybe the better way to achieve them will be to focus on APIs exploited by multiple interfaces, rather than on a miraculously adaptive HMTL5 front-end.
Of course, there are many technical arguments for one technology over the other. But the best and most important part is that you don’t have to choose between HTML5 and Flash because you can use both. Maybe the best answer is to acknowledge that HTML5 and Flash have their pros and cons and that you can use one or the other or both depending on the experience you wish to provide, your ROI and SEO constraints, and the human resources you access.
In short, it’s not a zero sum game. Rather, it’s a process of natural evolution, where HTML is catching up while Flash is focusing on advanced features (and narrowing, even as it consolidates, its market share). Both are complementary. So please, stop comparing.
