Michael Tuminello, Senior Manager, Product Planning at MediaMind weighs up the relative merits of Flash and HTML5
Clearly, HTML5’s star is rising. But declaring that Flash should be retired in favour of HTML5 is a bit like saying that everyone should adopt electric cars. Because although we can all agree it's a good idea conceptually, the infrastructure is just not there yet, particularly for online advertising.
That said, the increasing share of devices that don’t enable Flash is putting undeniable pressure on creative agencies to build ads using HTML5 in order to avoid building multiple versions to reach tablet users. With differences in screen size and ad delivery, the smartphone was just a warning shot. But for tablets, there is a real opportunity to share assets with the desktop-targeted version of the ad.
Adding to the pressure, Microsoft has joined Safari in banning plug-ins from Metro®, the tablet-version of IE10 that will be included in Windows 8 shipping this year. With Microsoft and Apple both disavowing Flash (and all browser plug-ins, for that matter) in their future-facing operating systems, it’s clear why agencies are viewing HTML5 as the future.
If you view tablet growth and future OS/browser support as the respective rock and hard place that will eventually squeeze Flash out of existence, then the ascension of HTML5 seems a given. But it’s worth considering what we’re losing.
While the proprietary 'black box' nature of Flash and browser plug-ins in general have been decried by Web standards enthusiasts, there are many strengths inherent in that approach that have yet to be replicated with HTML5. Flash content, for example, is portable across browsers and can even be loaded inside other Flash content such as Flash video players. Embed it in a page, and you can be assured that the content in the envelope of the plug-in will not interact with the content outside it. The self-contained nature of the plug-in makes the content visually consistent wherever it displays, whereas HTML5 content is subject to differences in browser layout rules and typeface differences across platforms or browsers.
On the authoring side, Flash design and development tools are mature and full-featured. In addition to Flash itself, you have Flash Builder and a number of third-party, code-oriented IDE’s such as FDT, and Flash has well-developed integration with design software such as Photoshop, Illustrator and Fireworks. That integration enables designers to more easily go from a multi-layered design layout to interactive content. In addition, it’s easier to work with scalable low-bandwidth vector content in Flash than any of the HTML5 tools currently available, and having the final output as a single optimized binary file (.SWF) rather than a directory of scripts and assets reduces the complexity of distributing your finished work.
Although much has been made of Flash performance issues related to mobile, as a desktop multimedia player Flash remains superior to HTML5 in terms of performance and supported features. Full-screen video, webcam usage and live video streaming are a few of the video features not currently supported by HTML5, and the audio side of the equation is even grimmer. For both audio and video, there is general confusion about supported formats across browsers and devices.
Finally, the Flash experience is optimised for the viewer - thanks to a one-time installation of the Flash Player (plus automatic updates). In contrast, HTML5’s rich media functionality is largely reliant on downloaded JavaScript libraries - akin to downloading the Flash Player every time you want to view Flash content.
To improve the user experience in the future, providers of browsers, operating systems, HTML5 authoring tools, and new computing devices must work together more closely to narrow the gaps between HTML5 and Flash. The difference between the two is especially glaring in the world of online advertising, where short QA cycles and optimised download time are key concerns.
Why not start by pre-installing an accepted list of all the supporting files required to enable Flash-like functionality in every browser? Or, better yet, keep this library online where you can make updates over time as agreed upon by a governing standards organisation?
While there is some celebration of the impending demise of Flash, unless we have a true and standardised replacement for it, the celebration will be short-lived. Agreeing on HTML5 as the new alternative is only the first step toward replacing all that Flash offers. To continue to maintain a largely free (AKA ad-supported) Internet, the HTML5 community and the companies driving its adoption must collaborate to ensure that the technology evolves into a truly viable platform for the next generation of rich media advertising designers and developers.
Michael Tuminello, Senior Manager, Product Planning at MediaMind