A lot of buzz usually surrounds a new Blog post by 37signals. As far as applications on the Internet go these guys are the kings of small, usable applications that do exactly what you want of them. Their Blog often keeps things in the same mindset; breaking old software engineering and management practices in favour of simple approaches to creating and launching applications.

However, the controversial method they have adopted can sometimes get out of hand, and exist solely for the purpose of it working for them. Their word is gospel and many developers hang on their every word, even when they are sometimes off the mark.

The article I would like to bring up today is The Hollywood Launch.

I’d definitely recommend that you read it before you read the rest of this, but for those with a short attention span the idea is to give users a taste of the action, then preview to a select audience, then to launch to fanfares and marching bands. In theory this idea is perfect. It allows you to build up an audience in the same ways Hollywood producers build up suspense for movies, with trailers and promotional posters.

A great concept, but one that has already proven to be flawed in execution.

Aaron Swartz of Raw Thought has beat me to the punch on this one, so instead of continuing with the rant I had prepared for this I’ll drag out what I feel is the most important point he has raised.

The Hollywood Launch only works when you have a quality product.

By quality, I mean in every sense of the word. Anyone remember Cuil? They created buzz, let out some previews and opened to firewords and broad claims, only for the website to fall flat on its face and provide awful experiences to 98% of its customers. The idea behind it was probably a fantastic one, but the quality of scaling obviously wasn’t.

I believe that your launch some depend entirely on what you’re trying to promote, although universally the biggest hurdle is the maintenance side of things. Your product is never complete and when you launch it is only probably 30% complete. Testing is the biggest hurdle of any software project, and the only ones that can perform quality testing is real end-users.

Gmail is probably the best example of a web service launch in history. They started out small, releasing an invite-only system that still allowed for many users to get accounts if they really wanted through invite lists. Throughout this time they spent countless hours improving the experience as users slowly grew. Despite it being in beta until the end of time the period has passed when Gmail has become a quality product with very few flaws. Not only that, but the invite-only scheme allowed users to get the email addresses they desired, instead of spam bots taking over.

The problem with the Hollywood Launch is that it packs all your testing time into the most frustrating week of your life. This simply isn’t healthy, neither is it safe for a business. If you were to launch a product to thousands of users and it were to fall over and die half-way through the day then your business may as well start from scratch.

Despite my criticisms, the Hollywood Launch and the Gmail Launch are mutually exclusive in the sense that hype was created, details were leaked and accounts were given slowly to users in an invite-only system where feedback was not only encouraged, it was demanded. In conclusion the best way to get a product off the ground is to purposely target the power users of similar tools. If you needed to launch a new email service it’s probably best to target businesses that churn their way through thousands of emails a day. It would’ve taken the Gmail team about ten years to find all the bugs in their software, but many of these were discovered within the first week of deployment.

Another apology is in order. I have neglected this Blog for some time since starting my new job, and as I am working a solid 6 days a week at around 10 hours a day with one day left to spend with my family/girlfriend I have become somewhat occupied with work. Hopefully when I go back to university this will change and there will be far more entries in this Blog. I have the ideas, just not the time.

Whenever Web Developers feel the need to say something negative we tend to be very inhibited within what we actually mean. There comes a time for many Web Developers when we’ll work with a client with a designer that couldn’t operate a graphics program if his/her life depended on it. These are the kind of people that spend hours a day working on animated pictures for their clients’ website to make it ’stand out from the crowd’. These are also the people that think the W3C is some kind of sports competition. We all know them, and they’re everywhere.

If you were given a design to work with, and it was awful, what would you tell the client?

This client of yours has obviously spent a reasonable amount of money for the services of this designer, and have gained a design that is so bad it’ll ruin any work you could possibly accomplish. Not only that, but it’ll reflect on your portfolio when this design is shown as the visible medium of your work. It’s for this reason that I think all Developers should really go to town on the Designers they work for.

So many Developers are willing to let a client sit there believing that they are getting top-quality design work when the design they have received is so poor most people wouldn’t even spend a couple of dollars on it. I think that it is the duty of anyone involved on the project to voice their concerns, and that should at least start with you.

So your client may end up annoyed, who cares? Whereas some clients might get annoyed at your claim that the design they have paid for isn’t very good there will be one client that’ll admire your courage and honesty, and that client will be worth more to you than the other clients put together.

First of all, sorry for the lack of posts. I’ve spent the past few weeks at my new job! No, it’s not a IT related job. I’m working 10-12 hour shifts at a sports store to earn money so that I can pay for tuition and so that I can take my girlfriend on holiday. Anyway, back to the story at hand:

Two days ago Newsweek published a somewhat confusing article on a lecturer teaching students how to write viruses and find exploits in software.

“In a windowless underground computer lab in California, young men are busy cooking up viruses, spam and other plagues of the computer age. Grant Joy runs a program that surreptitiously records every keystroke on his machine, including user names, passwords, and credit-card numbers. And Thomas Fynan floods a bulletin board with huge messages from fake users. Yet Joy and Fynan aren’t hackers—they’re students in a computer-security class at Sonoma State University. And their professor, George Ledin, has showed them how to penetrate even the best antivirus software.”

It’s a great article that I recommend you read, but before you do, please note that the author, Adam B. Kushner has put a large amount of spin on it.

This is exactly what academia is inteneded for: enabling students to reach the boundaries of education and knowledge by breaking every rule in the book. Teaching students how to make viruses is no different from a car mechanic learning how an engine works by taking it apart. By far the best way of learning about something is to actually use and develop it yourself. It’s a fantastic way to teach students about Programming and Operating Systems and it gives Computing students some work they can genuinely be proud of. It’s this kind of programming activity that should be a part of all Computing-based Academia; work that could really further security.

It is absurd that the author would take the side of a corporate security company that sells millions of dollars of software that fails to work as well as some of the free alternatives out there. This kind of research is what keeps the security companies in business, although by their treatment of these students in refusing to hire any of them I can see these companies falling to pieces.

In my honest opinion I believe that all CS students would benefit from these kind of activities. What the author fails to show is that these experiments are being performed in sealed labs, away from any open network that could result in a ‘leak’ for a potential virus. These experiments are completely harmless and unlike real viruses could never cause real damage.

However, in many ways, I think that these viruses should do real damage.

There, I said it! I would love to see a university develop a killer virus, capable of taking down a computer, regardless of whether it is a PC or a Mac. Hell, I would love to see a virus that could snap Linux like a twig. Why? Simply because we’ve become too complacent with software, especially major firms. If a virus that could easily destroy Windows were to be released the world would stand still, resulting in Microsoft programmers shifting their priorities from stupid acquisitions to improving the security on their products. In the same light a Linux virus would get obsesssed fans off their high horses and make them realise that the only way a product becomes great is by constant criticism. Not only would it be great for the quality of software, it would be phenomenal for the business of a small university with a poor reputation. If a small university were to claim that they had a computer virus that could take down millions of servers around the world thousands of companies would want the code and millions of potential students would read about it.

I hold the name George Ledin in high regard after reading about his course, and I can only hope that other lecturers read the article and see the benefits such a class could bring to the IT industry.

Those that read my Blog now and again will know of my achilles heel. For those that are new and have just read this post the main thing holding me back from being great with programming and Computer Science is my lack of Mathematical ability. I am very passionate about Computer Science, but my lack of formal education in Mathematics holds me back from really pushing myself in certain areas that I enjoy.

The other day I decided to read through a couple of research papers I had found lying around on my university intranet when I met some equations, probably simple ones, and my lack of Math knowledge forced me to stay on that page for about an hour to find out exactly what one equation meant. I then moved to the next page and discovered seven more!

Finally, I snapped. No longer will Mathematics be my downfall. I will spend as much free time as possible going over every necessary subset of Maths that I need to be a capable Computer Science student!

With newly-found enthusiasm I crawled the Internet looking for advice and eventually found out what I needed to learn. Being from the UK I left school at 16, the time when I stopping taking Maths as a subject. Thanks to this I would need some heavy training to get back to where I was at when I was 16 and onwards to actually knowing the stuff that the majority of CS students at top universities know. After a few days I formulated my plan of action, consisting of the following in video lecture format:

1. Linear Algebra
2. Differential Equations
3. Probability & Statistics
4. Algebra & Pre-calculus
5. Calculus
6. Discrete Mathematics
7. Anything else that is apparently basic that I cannot do in my head

It’s definitely going to take me a long time to become capable in all of these subjects, but I have a long summer ahead of me and I am making decent progress. I am now edging closer to the halfway mark with Linear Algebra and with luck will have it all finished within two weeks, when I can move onto two at a time, probably Algebra and Pre-calculus, and Differential Equations. I’ve done so much writing that I’ve even purchased two gigantic notepads and two pots of Tipp-Ex to correct the several mistakes per page that I am currently making. By the time I get to university in October I want to be capable of handling any algorithmic problems that can be thrown at me.

If you’re looking to study Computer Science, or are studying CS now and don’t know this stuff, hurry up and watch these lectures! Trust me when I say that knowing this will make your lives a lot easier.

One of the many things I hate about the online world is the religious stances many seem to take regarding their favourite software. By visiting any social news website you can clearly see that pro-Apple and Linux stories are dominant in tech circles, with anti-Microsoft hate bringing up the rear.

Every Mac and Linux distribution I have used has felt more than pleasurable. Most of the time I do not have a problem with using any Operating System and can do pretty much anything I want without much documentation. Also, both of these platforms have great software that make good use of the capability of the machine. I’m not a fan of bloated software, and Mac OSX and Linux both feel lightweight, yet overpowering at the same time.

Here’s a surprise for you all. I also love Windows.

How could you not? A young man dreams of a computer on every desk and it’s happened. It’s only fitting that his OS is the one on the majority of computers out there. As a piece of software you know you’re working with quality when you use a Microsoft product. Despite the fact that some computers break down every second I believe that the task of creating a stable OS that’ll run on the majority of hardware out there is an impressive feat, and as a tech-enthusiast I can sympathise with Microsoft when they are slated for having software that crashes. We never get to hear about when a Mac crashes or when Linux drivers and features sometimes fall apart. It’s pathetic that people will hold their heads high because they feel the software they’ve chosen to run on their computer is superior to yours.

For each of the three sides there are three visionaries, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds. Despite their stances on many things I believe the three of them share a common characteristic that has rubbed off to produce software of vast quality.

They complain, a lot.

In my opinion complaining is the most powerful tool for software quality management. If Bill Gates weren’t to give his staff the hairdryer treatment every time they showed signs of a lack of preparation and if Linus weren’t to be so passionate about his software, despite keeping an extremely low profile Linux wouldn’t prospher in the same way that it has.

What I like about these three powerful men is that they are seemingly never happy with software, and in many ways a user should never be blindly happy with an open source product. I hate all of this Linux praising and the constant headlines proclaiming this to be the year of Linux when it’s clearly still lacking as a general desktop OS. If more people were to complain about their software experiences then perhaps the gaping flaws in both Linux and Mac OSX would be clear to see and correct. This is why I believe Windows is still the dominant OS and a lot of Microsoft’s software is still on our machines today. To the techies Microsoft is the underdog and anything they do that is slightly wrong is dragged around the Internet. These people are performing the ultimate quality control on a released product, for free!

The reason why I believe that Open Source will succeed is simply because it provides the best platform for criticism. It’s just a shame that the politics of open source software get in the way of quality software being developed.

If I were to write a piece of software that I intend for others to use the first thing I would do once it is released to the public is to provide a means for suggestions and complaints. Software built on pessimism will turn out better than software built on optimism if you’re an average developer like myself. Whilst I’m still a university student and yet to undertake a substantial coding product my university can provide the next best means for criticism and by viewing the work that others have done in both different courses and different universities I can only better myself by setting large goals for my ability as a Computer Scientist, a Programmer and a Student.

The next time you use a piece of software stop kidding yourself that it is the best piece of software that you’ve ever used. Look past the fact that you rely on it and look at where it is flawed, then proceed to complain about it and file necessary bug reports if needed. A lesson I learned not too long ago was that there’s no harm in complaining and keeping your options open, whether it be for a new job or a new piece of software.

I don’t often like to talk about the state of different companies and their actions online, but when it’s about Microsoft, a company that all computer users are almost indebted to, I just had to write about their current stance with the online world.

At my university Live Search is the default choice on Internet Explorer’s search area, whereas on single computers not handled by the department all search areas will point to Google. It’s interesting to see someone search for something in the search box, expecting a Google page to turn up, to be greeted by this strange, alien page that they feel doesn’t help them in the slightest. I’d go as far as to say the most popular search term used in Live Search is probably Google. Let’s face it, at the moment Google IS search.

Despite their strong position I still don’t think Google is unbeatable at search.

In many ways you can’t blame Microsoft for wanting to get into the lucrative online world, what with Google being the new sugar-daddy of the software world simply through providing advertising along with free products. I’ve often become somewhat confused by many students’ ultimate goals in Computer Science to work for Google. I’m sure it’s a fantastic company to work for, but the online world is a world that is still very premature and closed, and Google work within a smaller subspace of that world. The only thing we can blame Microsoft for is how they’re damaging their own credibility through jealousy and greed.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Microsoft. I think they’re a fantastic company that makes great software. The one thing I cannot get my head around is why they feel the need to pick fights with Google, especially by announcing their intention to purchase Yahoo for their search business.

Microsoft have nothing to gain by buying Yahoo apart from large volumes of traffic. As a search engine, Yahoo is no better than Live Search, yet Microsoft seem to believe that by purchasing them they stand a better chance of gaining ground. The amount of money Microsoft want to offer is obscene, especially for a company that won’t even give Microsoft half of the market. They’re using old methods in an arena with new rules. A simple acquisition won’t help Microsoft in the slightest, and by doing so Live Search has already admitted defeat.

With a fraction of that money Microsoft could’ve invested heavily in research. We’re currently in this bubble of useless websites called Web 2.0. If Microsoft had any sense they’d build for this new version that everyone seems to think is coming yet we don’t have any idea of implementing named the Semantic Web. If Microsoft want to be a future competitor they need to build for the future. In many ways it seems they already are.

I don’t even know why people seem to think that Yahoo is a lost cause. The last time I checked they had some impressive software and websites in their online portfolio. Yahoo search is still second best, and with the engineering power behind them they could easily look to build bigger and better software and websites. Yahoo don’t NEED to own the best search engine!

The reason that Microsoft won’t succeed in search is because they don’t care about it, they only care about monetising it. In many ways why should they care about it? Sure, it’s a lucrative business, but Microsoft are the kings of Operating Systems and Office software. No online Google effort is going to touch that. By trying to fight Google in its own terretory Microsoft is losing its iron grip on the industry. Apple and Linux will never take the OS top-spot, and despite a confusing and poor MS Office release they’re still in command of that.

If I were Microsoft I would ditch all desperate attempts to buy Yahoo and stick to creating great software and technologies for the web. If they’re that desperate to buy a company for a crazy amount of cash why don’t they buy Adobe? Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator? They’ll have a foothold in the online world and Apple will become their bitch.

Just a thought…

A common question amongst webmasters and aspiring online business owners is the subject of rights to domain names. There have been a large number of legal questions and demands thrown around over domain names, ranging from Gmail to Microsoft and the more popular case of MySpace, but for regular webmasters like us do we really have the right to claim ownership on every variant of domain name? Since I own CodingFresh.com am I also entitled to own the same domain with .co.uk, .net, .org and the rest?

The simple answer is no.

Domains registration is handled on a first-come, first served basis unless there are specific grounds for appeal. For example, if someone were to register the domain superdomain.org and pass themselves off as the already established superdomain.com then there would be a reason for legal action.

I’m afraid the only real way to get the right to a domain is to hold the international trademark on the domain name, and obviously this isn’t an easy (or cheap) thing to do. In many ways it’s not an easy situation to be in, trademarks are in place to remove confusion about brands, not to entitle rights to the owner, thus making an endeavor to obtain a domain name somewhat pointless (unless you’re the next Microsoft, where in that case you should offer me a job for this post I’ve written for you).

The simple fact is that there are very few companies and individuals that can argue a case to exclusive ownership to a group of domain names. In the rare occasions where two parties have taken their issues to court on this subject it usually ends in a big fat ‘not guilty’ verdict, although the defendant has most likely lost an obscene amount of money on just getting to court. This gives you no right to go out and buy domain names based on popular companies as the only reason these cases exist is to debate two parties that obviously have invested time and effort into their name and business.

Luckily for us there are now specific international channels to take your concerns to. A great resource is the WIPO guide to the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

I’m sorry to all those who wanted the answer to be different. I have felt the pain of being priced out of a domain because someone else had purchased it before and demanded thousands for it. Although there are people out there that own domain names that you want it doesn’t mean that all is lost. Believe it or not there are people out there who are willing to sell domain names back to you or to provide a link to your site to avoid any confusion. The best way to enquire is to email the webmaster about whether they are willing to sell you their domain name or to suggest an alternative course of action.

Who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and the person that owns your domain name might not be a greedy domain farmer.

A couple of years ago I was working with a number of websites on their forum scripts; essentially putting a main website layout onto a vBulletin forum, then handing out general advice on how to moderate and delegate, as well as how to lay out a forum structure. Whilst this was interesting for a while I decided to take a client that was looking to turn big in the world of game journalism. I decided to help out with their forum reluctantly and ended up spending almost every other day tweaking PHP files to add new modifications or to add new things or take them away. I eventually left a full week to get everything done then I left the project, leaving them to find someone else if extra work was needed. Whilst this was a nice earner for me it left me with no free time and no ability to explore new talents and technologies. After a year of tweaking variables and editing basic code my skills diminished and it definitely hit my college grades, but hey, at least I could afford a car…

In many ways, a project could and should be visualised as a personal engagement between a client and a designer/developer. It’s important to take a project that YOU want to work on, as well as to choose a client that you think you will get on with. At desperate times any work is great work, and I don’t disagree with anyone that looks to the fiscal side of work, but if you’re not working for fun then you’ll just eventually burn yourself out and wind up depressed with nowhere to go, perhaps with a nice car or two.

We all get projects that frustrate us to no end, but there is a difference between good and bad types of frustration. I’ve taken the time recently to catch up on my Math knowledge and at times I have felt frustrated with Matrices, yet the one thing I’ve wanted to do is to carry on and finish my problem sets and books. This is a good type of frustration and will only strive to keep me going until I bleed algorithms. If I were frustrated by having to do the Math then I would end up nowhere and the entire ordeal would be a waste of my precious time.

So why do we end up with projects and work that we really don’t want? Here’s a few ideas I’d like to throw out there.

A lot of programmers and developers tend to underbid for work. As an industry a large group tend to sell themselves short due to geographical location or inexperience. Over the past few years I’d struggle to count how many new web designers and developers I’ve noticed that offer extremely good services for next to nothing, just because they’d like to add a few notches to their online bedposts. It’s a stupid thing to do that no other business would even consider. How often would an architect decide to build a mall for £50,000 ($100,000) because it was his first time working on one? You may think that you’re offering a good service that clients will stick around for, but they’re just going to use you to get a cheap design. If you want to know how to price yourself use the old ‘ask-your-rival’ technique! Find a similar web designer to you and email them asking about their rates, then price accordingly.

Another problem is that a lack of research into the client provides an inadequate project experience. A bit of online snooping rarely amounts to concrete knowledge on a subject, so it’s always a good idea to get information straight from the horses mouth, whether you ask yourself or anonymously to the client. Always do heavy research on a client and perform a Needs Analysis to ensure that they’re the kind of client you want to work with.

Finally, trust your instincts! After sending emails back and forth, perhaps attending an interview with them, you should have a pretty good idea on how legit they are, what their aims and goals are and what they expect from you. Face time with a client is fantastic, but if you’re working solely online a couple of phone calls or emails should work well enough for your needs.

In any line of work you’ll have to work with people that you don’t like. It’s just a fact of life! Either way, the only way to get around this is to knuckle-down and do the work, despite how much you enjoy it. If you’ve accepted a project then you’d better finish it as quickly as possible! You’ve made your bed and now you’ll have to sleep in it, and depending on how long you’ll take it can either become a powernap or a coma.

For those who have never heard of it, Digg.com is a social news website where users add and comment on various websites on the Internet with an emphasis on news. It was a pioneer in social news with its infamous voting structure, now copied on every other social news website on the planet. In simple terms, the more ‘diggs’ a story receives in a reasonably amount of time the better chance it has of reaching the front page, the pinnacle of all stories on Digg.

Despite it being known as a cutting-edge website Digg has existed for years, starting out as a technology resource. Back then it was fantastic for tech stories, with any industry news and articles sprouting up within minutes of being published. In short, if you wanted top-quality tech news fast Digg was the place to be.

Of course, like a lot of businesses Digg wanted to be bought out. Despite never really declaring their intentions Digg was, and still is desperate for someone to take the website off their hands for a large sum of money. The website moved to a wider focus, general news, where it aimed to keep the same standards for quality and breaking news as before. Sadly, this didn’t stick.

For the past year Digg has been an unbearable community and website. If users aren’t spamming articles on Barack Obama and Ron Paul then British newspapers like the Daily Mail are manipulating votes on their own stories to get traffic from Digg. In a few short years Digg has shifted from news website to traffic builder and altogether ‘funny-stuff-on-the-internet’ website. Website owners will Digg their own stories in an aim to get more traffic (myself included, so I can use the bandwidth I have and get one or two visitors out of it), with some going as far as to devise plans on how to manipulate Digg counts to ensure that their website always ends up on the front page, through methods such as assembling teams to Digg new stories. A website well-known for cashing in on the liberal frenzy of Digg is the Huffington Post, where ‘authors’ will write ‘news’ on how Barack Obama will appear in a technicolour dream-coat and will lead us all to the promised land.

As a news resource Digg died a very long time ago. Digg caters for an exclusive community nowadays, ranging from armchair political nuts, to gaming fanboys, to internet meme addicts. It’s very rare to see a news story break first on Digg anymore, and extremely rare to see any real news in the top stories of the day. However, for todays generation of Digg users quality news content is not the meal of the day. They come to Digg to be entertained, and their community can definitely offer that.

This is great for their die-hard community, but not for their owners and not for the large percentage of submitters.

As I mentioned before, the owners of Digg are desperate for acquisition. For a website that could easily become yesterdays news it’s a top priority to get rid of the website before this happens. Reddit has already stolen a lot of Digg’s thunder over the past couple of months and I don’t give it long before Reddit acquires a lot of Digg’s traffic. The problem for the owners of Digg is that as a news resource and community Digg has lost all focus and credibility. A news corporation would never buy Digg because of its political and internet dynamic, neither would a large technology website because of vast legal issues surrounding its controversial past. In itself, Digg is more comedy than news, with the same users and websites commonly getting large amounts of Digg’s.

For submitters a front-page placement on Digg was once the holy grail. To many people getting on the front page of the popular website would mean thousands of visitors reading your content, and this still rings true. The problem today is that webmasters have now realised that whilst adding a website to Digg isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the generated traffic is almost a bad thing. Who really wants thousands of users that will never visit again or click any ads? Much like with Stumbleupon you can receive vast amounts of traffic with little return as far as interaction and ad-clicks go, resulting in nothing but an inflated bandwidth bill or suspension of your account by your host. A lot of top-quality webmasters have caught onto the fact that social networks do not offer that much directed traffic and do not promote their links anymore, which will only result in a lack of quality stories on these social websites.

Whilst on the surface Digg appears to be a fully-functioning example of user-selected content, deeper in shows a potentially dangerous power-struggle involving the staff manipulating Digg themselves. Today, stories like this aren’t even noteworthy, because we all know that Digg is an inside job. In many ways it has to be, because in an online society where the loudest demand power a policing service needs that power. As a website it has become too volatile, with a lack of quality control and an emphasis on pleasing a community that’ll turn its back on the website the second something better comes along. In my honest opinion Digg as a social news website is dead. If I were one of the owners I would slap some heavy quality-control on the website, ban ALL abusive users, cap reoccuring websites and try to emulate the same content that brought in users a couple of years ago. If Reddit can keep a top-notch programming subsection going with its recent spurt of popularity then I’m sure Digg can gain quality content once again.

Boy, did I not expect to see this when I woke up this morning…

Source: Google Webmaster Central Blog

“We’ve received numerous requests to improve our indexing of Adobe Flash files. Today, Ron Adler and Janis Stipins—software engineers on our indexing team—will provide us with more in-depth information about our recent announcement that we’ve greatly improved our ability to index Flash.”

After reading into the subject it seems that Google have been working alongside Adobe to come up with a new Flash indexing algorithm. Ever since Adobe acquired Macromedia it seems that they’ve been dead set on promoting and improving their leading products to ensure that they continue to improve and play vital roles in online usage.

As a Web Designer/Developer it leads me to worry immensly about how they will shape the future of the business and whether clients will now want all their websites to be created in Flash. I’m sure you could all name a thousand reasons as to why using Flash for a website is a bad thing, but recent developments with Flash have caused us to rethink our strategies on the most popular browser plug-in of all time.

The Internet as it is hasn’t changed a lot over the years. In fact, it’s barely changed at all! Whilst the Internet has sat there doing nothing Flash has moved leaps and bounds every year, and now with Google deeming text in Flash to be crawlable we have to realise that Flash is an attractive prospect to many. Whilst we’ve all been complaining Adobe have found ways around the many problems we face with Flash websites today. Flash is now bookmarkable as SWF files can act based on URL’s, Flash is likely to become somewhat accessible in the future, if not through an XML file feeding content into the Flash file, and Flash works on the majority of platforms, aside from mobile devices.

So we’ve come to the conclusion that Flash does work for websites, right?

Wrong.

As a tool Flash allows for a lot of control over user interface, leaving this in the hands of the designer/developer. Creating a website in Flash is completely different to creating a website in HTML/CSS, with the former requiring a lot more design/artistic flair to accomplish a workable UI. Since a lot of Flash designers aren’t UI experts a large amount of full-Flash websites are close to unusable for the average person. As the skill-set for an experienced Flash developer is more extensive than an experienced web designer there will always be a tiny group of well-made Flash websites against a sea of terrible ones.

In many ways, Flash and AJAX are very similar. Both are very annoying, useless on average handheld devices, and used in ways they shouldn’t be.

One real worry I have with this new development is the level of abuse that Google may suffer. Due to the dynamic nature of Flash and it’s newly-found crawlability perhaps we’re not far off from black-hat SEO analysts deciding to stuff Flash files with invisible or pre-loading text; any excuse to get their precious websites up a few ranks and to cash in on the success of fooling search engines.

As much as I do not like websites completely created in Flash I cannot claim to be a part of the war. I do believe Flash has its place, and there are times when a full-Flash website may be reasonable for a business. Whilst I wish to stay on the sidelines the war is about to kick off again between the Flash Developers and the Web Developers. We’ll just have to see how well Google picks up text in Flash to see how this war pans out, but do expect the usual amount of lies, tears and tantrums from both sides as they duke it out to see who is the best at making websites.