Last week’s “letter” from Steve Jobs and his thoughts on Flash clearly caused a stir. Not only did it solidify the suspicions that Apple was simply not a fan of the Flash plugin but it also provided a few reasons behind the exclusion.
With the kindling poised for a massive “flamewar”, a few people at Organic decided to express their thoughts on the debate.
First up was a few points about rollovers:
“Since the mid-90s, users have struggled with the Designers’/UXers’ choice to hide functionality behind ‘rollover interactions.’ Now, evolving form factor is further argument against these poor choices. Imagine if every door you entered you had to ‘explore’ the face of it by floating your hand over the surface until the hidden knob appeared?”
“Rollovers that reveal expected and expanded functionality aren’t bad, but ‘uncluttering’ an interface by hiding functionality is bad. Rollovers should enhance understanding. And, if you ‘touch,’ that’s not a rollover. Rollover is a passive action. Touch isn’t.”
Next came the point of performance:
“Flash sucks on mobile devices. When showcased during the Adobe Keynote at FITC, I seriously cringed and had to look away from the disaster on stage. The performance was horrid and the UX was even worse. Mis-clicks, ridiculously non-optimized text, and strange transitions mean that the already unfortunate experience that most Flash sites provide is made even worse.”
This potentially argumentative statement instead fueled a discussion on choice:
“If Flash sucks on the iPhone, iPad, mobile device and robs battery life, poor functionality, etc etc, then let people discover that… find alternatives. When you present people with options, and the ability to see what works better, they will gravitate towards the better technology without a single guided hand. When you deny people the option, it doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad, you are preventing people from discovering their own opinions.”
This seemed to be the crux of the problem. Regardless of any technical/business challenges that are presented, there is a large group of people who prefer choice over all else. However, it’s clear that the “pro-choice” folks do seem to be largely technically savvy. What about mom or Joe Shmoe?

“You’re all talking as if people know what Flash is. Most don’t. We’re in the industry, so we get what a plug-in is. This doesn’t reflect the understanding of the greater majority, who still confuse browsers with search engines with internets.”
Now are we just “catering to the lowest common denominator”? Does it make financial sense to bet your product on the idea that your audience will understand how the whole thing works and know what elements are at fault for an issue?

“Gone are the days when you needed to know how the rear differential or transmission works in your car. Just get the driver to their destination and make sure the radio works.”
Special thanks to Todd Fraser, Craig Ritchie, David Moag, James McIntosh, and Scott McFayden for joining in the debate.