Creating Simple Visual Effects Using JQuery Instead of Adobe Flash
In 1996, Macromedia launched its famous vector-based animation software, Macromedia Flash – now Adobe Flash with the acquisition of Macromedia by Adobe in 2005. While JavaScript was introduced by Netscape in 1995, it wasn’t until Microsoft incorporated it into the 1997 version of Internet Explorer 4.0 that JavaScript started to get real recognition as a notable programming language for the web. However, JavaScript was incredibly slow back then and browsers simply did not have the processing power to cope with advanced use of the language.
Now, over a decade since its inception, JavaScript has grown by leaps and bounds to become intrinsic to web development. With the advent of AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) techniques and the proliferation of JavaScript libraries and frameworks such as jQuery, JavaScript is poised to dominate the web development world.
And dominate it will. In the previously uncharted realm of JavaScript animations, jQuery is becoming a force to reckon with. It is giving web developers the power to create low-level animations and widgets, formerly the forte of Macromedia Flash and, before Flash, animated GIFs (graphics interchange format).
There are several advantages of using jQuery for low level animations, navigation (tabbed menus, dropdown menus, etc), widgets (date-pickers, accordions, etc) and interaction (drag-and-drop, auto-complete, etc). These are listed below:
1. Flash content requires a Flash Player plug-in, which needs to be downloaded from Adobe.com. On the other hand, jQuery does not require any plug-in as all modern browsers have JavaScript engines. Granted, jQuery components may not be viewable with JavaScript disabled on the user’s browser. However, it is less likely that a user will have disabled JavaScript than it is for him or her not to have installed the Flash Player plug-in. Furthermore, the Flash Player plug-in is not available for the iPhone and many other cell phones. Thus, it is most probable that a website featuring jQuery will be viewable by more users than one that employs Flash.
2. While the Flash Player plug-in is free, Flash authoring tools are not. The current version, Adobe Flash CS4 Professional, retails at $699. JQuery is available for free from JQuery.com. Although some jQuery plug-ins are not free for commercial use, none costs as much as $699.
3. JQuery affords the web developer more convenience in creating accessible yet interactive websites. While accessibility can still be achieved in Flash-powered websites, techniques for making this possible are complex and time-consuming.
4. JQuery is more suitable for SEO (search engine optimization) than Flash. Flash content is heavier on images than text, and search engines mostly rely on text to index web pages.
That being said, jQuery is still not ready to take over from Flash as the premier platform for web visual effects. JQuery cannot handle 3D animations, and some complex 2D animations are smoother when done in Flash. Flash is also the best platform for video on web applications.
In the end, the onus is upon the web developer to make a smart decision on where jQuery would be more suitable than Flash. Many high-profile companies are using jQuery on their web applications – the likes of Google, Dell, Netflix, CBS, NBC, etc. Using jQuery for simple visual effects in your web applications is definitely a smart move.
Short summary (not included in the word count)
Since its inception in the 1990s, JavaScript has grown by leaps and bounds to become intrinsic to web development. With the advent of AJAX web development techniques and the proliferation of JavaScript libraries and frameworks such as jQuery, it is now possible to create low-level animations, widgets, navigation and website interaction using JavaScript. This article sums up the advantages of creating simple visual effects using jQuery instead of Adobe Flash.
Tags: javascript, jquery
This post is very interesting. I would say that purpose of Flash is not to create small animation effects, it’s just an addition. However, i would just add few more lines in your research:
1. if you need only one, small animation effect on the site, then including jQuery library (24KB) is waste of bandwidth.
2. to have a lot of animation effects on the site may slowdown JS run-time and may cost much more in matter of time, you might spend much more time building animated site with jQuery then by using Flash.
3. jQuery developers are cheaper then Flash developers, even if you compared feature-ish sites
4. i like jQuery because i’ve never learnt Flash, so jQuery wins in any case
If you ask me, the result should be:
jQuery 3:2 Flash
Cheers!
I can’t agree with you more, whilst flash isn’t completely redundant. It does mostly depend on where your visitors are coming from and their purpose on your site. Commercial users will just want to get in find what they want and move onto the next site.
You said “Flash Player plug-in is not available for the iPhone and many other cell phones.”
I don’t agree with it, now iPhone is the only one brand which not support flash but other brands such as Windows Phone7 Series, Symbian and also Android are work together closely with Adobe to make their mobile OS to support Flash.