Hacker News Reader

Every changing? We've been complaining about Flash on sites like these for years. We wanted a way to view their menus on our phones. We wanted to be able to see their hours without waiting for a 10 megabyte flash object to load. We wanted to make a reservation online, etc.

I'm not sure why these Flash interfaces exist. More than likely someone who's good at running a restaurant isn't going to be know a lot of technology and will get roped into the most expensive flash-based design they can afford. Items like usability, mobile friendliness, etc never come up because the owner doesn't know or care about it and the designers are too invested in Flash to try anything else.

Is this hurting their business? I'm not sure. I never go to restaurant sites. I visit yelp instead. I only do takeout from places that have good systems in place. Its a competitive advantage now to take online reserverations and have a menu I can view on my phone. Considering something like 80% of all new restaurants go out of business after their first year, it might make sense for these owners to stop being so pigheaded about technology and ask themselves if that slow non-mobile $20,000 Flash site is really serving their customers.

This is the same battle we had with restaurants being cash only 15 or so years ago. The ones that embraced credit cards seemed to have flourished and the cash-only place is either gone or has degenerated into a dive. I think the lower tech your industry is, the most room there is for disruption. These blue-collar places really need to consider the big picture here.

> I never go to restaurant sites. I visit yelp instead.

I've tried and I let them know when I do.

When I want the experience, I'll go to the web site. When I just want to know if they have food that fits within my dietary constraints, I'd like to find out easily. That's not necessarily available via yelp (or whatever is awesome this week).

It is hard to find the restaurant sites as the flash only ones often have no content that is indexed by google, like a blank one I visited yesterday to see if it was open.

> I'm not sure why these Flash interfaces exist.

If they existed in the first place it was probably because back when the precedence was set, Flash was on the verge of being the next big thing. Resizing images, audio, video, chat, installed on 98% of browsers, etc. It was only getting better and the thought was that everyone needed a website or they'd be out of business. That didn't pan out for the restaurant business, whose model is based more on reputation than menu updates. A model dutifully exploited by the likes of Yelp.

If Flash sites still exist today it's either because of economic apathy (they don't make any money from it) or they're targeting a specific user. Yes, some things look crappy on purpose and some people actual derive value from that.

I cannot speak from the perspective of a professional photographer, but I'm assuming that they do not derive the majority of their income based on targeting devices or platforms and those people affording them advice in that particular market segment aren't on the same level as say someone who makes a living in providing technology services to companies that do.

Just like a simple camera and film, Flash has been there, relatively unchanged, for many years.

Except that, unlike a camera and film, Flash no longer works for some fairly important use cases.

You're making the assumption that photographers are concerned about the same use cases as you are. Without addressing their need for using Flash, you cannot begin a conversation about why it's a horrible and obsolete choice, never mind provide an adequate solution moving forward.

If you have an objection to using standard technologies, why don't you voice it instead of just berating people because objections might exist?

I'm not berating anyone.

What I'm voicing is neither an objection nor an approval for one choice of technology over another. What I'm saying is that the author of the post, without any admitted experience or knowledge deems themselves so adept as to ask an entire industry segment to abandon the use of a technology without providing any sound logic behind their request or viable alternatives.

I know they shouldn't be using Flash; I've been berating people about that for over a decade. But even so, as a technologist I cannot offer a solution to that particular segment without knowing the root cause of their particular choice, their present requirements nor the necessity of a photographer engaging in a venture that for all I know won't provide them any return or benefit. I find it presumptuous to know what's best for someone else without even knowing the root causes of their alleged problem, especially artists who by virtue of their business model have more to lose than gain by presenting their work in an inferior portfolio format.

There will be some who'll find a solution that fits them best and other who'll keep paying the hosting and update fees until they've become tired and lose interest. It's the nature of the beast. All told, there will be less developers with Flash abilities moving forward and the public will become more educated, so who knows, maybe the problem will solve itself.

I didn't say it was horrible or obsolete, or anything about my use cases. What is clear is that the OP, who is clearly a photographer, can't use Flash for perfectly valid use cases for him, as a photographer.

I think his article is a little OTT since the solution to his problem is simple - don't use Flash. In fact, the whole article is about how he doesn't actually have a problem because he doesn't use Flash, and I'm not sure why he feels the need to exhort all other photographers to do the same, but each to their own. But his reasons for not using it are perfectly valid and based on a valid use case for photographers.

Adapt or die. Mobile is already big and it will get much bigger. 2012 is the year of the tablet. Android should finally produce some great tablets, the iPad 3 will be great, and we might even see some interesting tablets from Microsoft.

I've often seen "Adapt or Die" mean "Adapt (to my specific use case) or Die (in my eyes, i.e. someone who was never in your addressable market in the first place)."

This may be one of those cases.