Responses to “FlashObject Is Now Named SWFObject”

  1. Nik says:

    Hi Joen,

    I didn’t know you used this.. it looks good.

    Do you know if it provides (or has the functionality built -in) to provide and html alternative?

    It would be cool if those with JS switched off, would then be provided with an HTML alternative.

    Been a long day already, so I might not be making much sense, or talking nonsense!

    Nik

  2. Joen says:

    Well since I learned about it, my relationship with it has been on off, simply due to the layer of complexity that an extra JS include offers.

    Yet for every time I’ve used it, I’ve had no problems, only benefits. Particularly when you work with JavaScript you get huge benefits because there’s no longer any distinction between the way Firefox and IE handles it. This makes it easier to use, for instance, document.getElementById and so on.

    In fact, due to FlashObject .. I mean SWFObject, I have rewritten my installments section for my redesign, and it’s EXTREMELY much faster now! I even nuked an entire iframe without losing functionality. I seems all ajaxy now (even though it’s not).

    Nik said:

    Hi Joen,

    Do you know if it provides (or has the functionality built -in) to provide and html alternative?

    As far as I know, SWFObject is the only flash embed technique that DOES have an HTML alternative which is useful. Quite simply, you create a DIV with all the HTML content you want, and SWFObject then replaces that DIV if Flash is installed. Search engines still read the DIV so it’s ultra-optimized.

    It would be cool if those with JS switched off, would then be provided with an HTML alternative.

    Been a long day already, so I might not be making much sense, or talking nonsense!

    Nik

    No nonsense at all, and SWFObject is exactly what you’re looking for.

  3. Nik says:

    Brilliant! I think I might give it a go for my… err.. redesign! I know, I know! Not again.. I’m addicted! :)

    Without turning this into a thread about the upcoming noscope redesign.., your new installments section sounds cool. I can’t wait to see it. Any sign of a launch date on the horizon? I’m going for cssreboot on 1st May. But then my site is not going to be very complicated at all.

  4. Joen says:

    Nik said:

    Brilliant! I think I might give it a go for my… err.. redesign! I know, I know! Not again.. I?m addicted! :)

    Without turning this into a thread about the upcoming noscope redesign.., your new installments section sounds cool. I can?t wait to see it. Any sign of a launch date on the horizon? I?m going for cssreboot on 1st May. But then my site is not going to be very complicated at all.

    I’m hesitant to give a launch date, because it puts extra pressure on my shoulders, but it’s not that far away either. I’ve gotten quite a few things pinned down and ready.

    Oh, and about the installments section, it features some other really cool features which I’m super eager to unveil. One of them is a “scale-to-fit” function which Jonas Rabbe has been complaining for for ages. It works wonders, and on all screens too!

  5. Nik says:

    It works wonders, and on all screens too!

    I’ll get my mobile ready then! ;)

  6. Joen says:

    Nik said:

    It works wonders, and on all screens too!

    I?ll get my mobile ready then! ;)

    ehm, well… the new site has a min-width of 807px …

  7. bramick says:

    Do you have any experience in using the method vs UFO