Comments on: Flash Satay and Parameters, Flash on Other Domains http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/ Geoff Gaudreault's Flash weblog and source files archive. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:42:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: geoff http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/#comment-312 geoff Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:53:06 +0000 http://www.neurofuzzy.net/?p=23#comment-312 Hmmm... unfortunately javascript includes are not an option for me. I'm already using javascript includes for the captions in my slideshows, and users are reporting problems. Reason being that most sites do not allow - and filter out - all javascript includes from their systems. Myspace in particular had a huge problem with someone hacking their site using javascript in a post. So now, no more javascript includes. Allowing users to post javascript allows for all kinds of XSS attacks, as well. Hmmm… unfortunately javascript includes are not an option for me. I’m already using javascript includes for the captions in my slideshows, and users are reporting problems. Reason being that most sites do not allow - and filter out - all javascript includes from their systems. Myspace in particular had a huge problem with someone hacking their site using javascript in a post. So now, no more javascript includes. Allowing users to post javascript allows for all kinds of XSS attacks, as well.

]]> By: Geoff http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/#comment-311 Geoff Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:47:31 +0000 http://www.neurofuzzy.net/?p=23#comment-311 Also, another bonus to use Javascript just occurred to me: If you give your users a line of html like this: Since you would be spitting out custom js on the server side, if you ever update your embed code (maybe you decide that transparent is taking too much away from the performance, and want to switch to wmode=opaque?) then you can do that very easily and all of your users will be updated instantly. Or maybe you just want to change the width and height of the Flash movie? It would be really easy with a little Javascript. Also, another bonus to use Javascript just occurred to me:

If you give your users a line of html like this:

Since you would be spitting out custom js on the server side, if you ever update your embed code (maybe you decide that transparent is taking too much away from the performance, and want to switch to wmode=opaque?) then you can do that very easily and all of your users will be updated instantly. Or maybe you just want to change the width and height of the Flash movie? It would be really easy with a little Javascript.

]]> By: Geoff http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/#comment-310 Geoff Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:41:01 +0000 http://www.neurofuzzy.net/?p=23#comment-310 Why don't "Javascript tricks" count? You should be aware of some of the drawbacks of using Flash Satay, such as JAWS not reading your content (at all): http://weblogs.macromedia.com/accessibility/archives/2005/08/in_search_of_a.cfm Not to mention older versions of Safari will completely ignore your param tags, usually causing the movie to break anyway. Then, as if that's not enough, if you are using cool stuff in Flash 8, and your users have Flash 7, the plugin will still try to play the swf, usually causing some odd behavior. You should consider a Javascript solution - it makes it much easier for your users to embed (they could just copy a single script tag) and it gives their users a much better experience, by possibly offering alternate content, or an upgrade message, or you could even use the new ExpressInstall stuff, which requires Javascript. Why don’t “Javascript tricks” count?

You should be aware of some of the drawbacks of using Flash Satay, such as JAWS not reading your content (at all):
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/accessibility/archives/2005/08/in_search_of_a.cfm

Not to mention older versions of Safari will completely ignore your param tags, usually causing the movie to break anyway.

Then, as if that’s not enough, if you are using cool stuff in Flash 8, and your users have Flash 7, the plugin will still try to play the swf, usually causing some odd behavior.

You should consider a Javascript solution - it makes it much easier for your users to embed (they could just copy a single script tag) and it gives their users a much better experience, by possibly offering alternate content, or an upgrade message, or you could even use the new ExpressInstall stuff, which requires Javascript.

]]> By: John Dowdell http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/#comment-9 John Dowdell Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:59:05 +0000 http://www.neurofuzzy.net/?p=23#comment-9 <em>"I guess either you're standards-compliant or you're not."</em> I get confused with that label, wondering whether we should have used PNG instead of GIF and JPG the last five years. That's why I was trying to get a functional definition for the label "be standards compliant", so that I wouldn't assume the wrong standards. Many of the W3C Validators don't like the "EMBED" tag, which browsers had used for years... the realworld was deprecated. If that's the main issue, then we wouldn't have to worry about other standards like VRML. (If you'd prefer a different syntax on the OBJECT/EMBED tags, then it's pretty straightforward to make your own publishing templates: (<a href="http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flash/mx2004/main_7_2/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm?context=Flash_MX_2004&file=00000499.html">link</a>) “I guess either you’re standards-compliant or you’re not.”

I get confused with that label, wondering whether we should have used PNG instead of GIF and JPG the last five years. That’s why I was trying to get a functional definition for the label “be standards compliant”, so that I wouldn’t assume the wrong standards.

Many of the W3C Validators don’t like the “EMBED” tag, which browsers had used for years… the realworld was deprecated. If that’s the main issue, then we wouldn’t have to worry about other standards like VRML.

(If you’d prefer a different syntax on the OBJECT/EMBED tags, then it’s pretty straightforward to make your own publishing templates:
(link)

]]> By: Geoff http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/#comment-8 Geoff Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:24:21 +0000 http://www.neurofuzzy.net/?p=23#comment-8 Paul, good catch, you are right, thanks! John, I guess either you're standards-compliant or you're not. But, I would say using valid, well-formed XHTML is <em>more</em> compliant than using the default OBJECT tag that flash spits out by default. For me, the default code was having alignment problems, and the Flash Satay code just behaved better. And, for some odd reason, now the flash movie plays faster in Safari. Paul, good catch, you are right, thanks!

John, I guess either you’re standards-compliant or you’re not. But, I would say using valid, well-formed XHTML is more compliant than using the default OBJECT tag that flash spits out by default. For me, the default code was having alignment problems, and the Flash Satay code just behaved better. And, for some odd reason, now the flash movie plays faster in Safari.

]]> By: PaulWeston http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/#comment-7 PaulWeston Sat, 04 Dec 2004 09:44:18 +0000 http://www.neurofuzzy.net/?p=23#comment-7 Shouldn't that be: value="transparent" with the '=' Shouldn’t that be:

value=”transparent”

with the ‘=’

]]> By: John Dowdell http://www.neurofuzzy.net/2004/12/04/flash-satay-and-parameters-flash-on-other-domains/#comment-6 John Dowdell Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:43:04 +0000 http://www.neurofuzzy.net/?p=23#comment-6 With which standards and recommendations do you wish the page to be compliant? Is there a particular way you'd know "it's compliant enough"? (I'm guessing one of the W3C validators is the key test, but I want to check whether "be standards compliant"includes other things too.) jd With which standards and recommendations do you wish the page to be compliant? Is there a particular way you’d know “it’s compliant enough”? (I’m guessing one of the W3C validators is the key test, but I want to check whether “be standards compliant”includes other things too.)

jd

]]>