Different forms will always exist. Ajax, CSS and Flash each do what they are supposed to do really well. They may take cues from each other which is inevitably what life's all about...building on strengths. If anything, this would make these systems more alike than different.

Julius is right in that Flash is going to be a major player. Adobe is a big company and they know what they are doing. Flash was the cutting edge for website design for the past 6 years (for those that had the money and resources to utilise it) and it is inevitably going to leapfrog the competition for the next 6 years. And this is how it will stay. The common man will have his simple sites while the bigger guys will have their media rich platforms catering the needs of media hungry visitors.

Ironically, when you visit http://www.juliusdesigns.com/ there is an option for an html version of the site as well as a flash version. And honestly, the flash version does a 10X better job of showing off this guys portfolio in a way that html never could...with finesse. This segregation exists today and will continue in the future.

I honestly hate splash pages..

Originally Posted by Raize

Ironically, when you visit http://www.juliusdesigns.com/ there is an option for an html version of the site as well as a flash version. And honestly, the flash version does a 10X better job of showing off this guys portfolio in a way that html never could...with finesse. This segregation exists today and will continue in the future.

Thats true Raize.

The only reason I added the html version was so that the site can be picked up by search engines better. Adobe is currently working with ways that search engines can index Flash sites the same way as html sites, so for now I'll need the html version.

Originally Posted by Pala

I honestly hate splash pages..

Agree there

The main page on our site is simply to give visitors an option to view an HTML version or the Flash version. Would you rather be forced to see the Flash site?

I personally hate flash. The lack of back functionality, the fact that it goes over anything else, the lack of browser compatibility...

Flash is just flashy, it doesn't do much. For functionality, AJAX is the way of the future, hence Gmail running off it. Ajax out performs flash in functionality - dramatic reductions in server queries mean that I try to implement AJAX wherever I can.

Flash is often mis-used to replace HTML and pictures, which goes against the www ht navigation accross navigation.

Also flash isn't exactly SEF.

Imo, flash should be used for flash films, and not much else

Flash in moderation

No, I think the Flash stage will pass in a couple of years.

Already the design world is heading into a more minimilistic, rounded look with thick borders.

Everything isn't about showing off your skills anymore (thank God), but showing off the way you think. :P

flash ain't the future, it's the past!
.flv's of course are the surviving trait,
but .swf's are already outmoded and fading fast

I think that the recession has numbed all the excess-producing gits and finally we shall see the rise of java

eg I am making a tutorial of java myself, accessable currently at the front page of many of my sites... eg http://www.ukusers4u.com (all it is is a page with a basic helloworld java applet and the code required and instructions on how to build it on a linux server using the commandline - I recommend any linux nuts here give it a go - once you've realised how easy it is to produce java on your server, you'll realise it's worth learning all the ins and outs and building complex stuff with it. I sure intend to).

Not really the future. Some wants flash but dont expect others to follow.

It may have its own beauty and glamour but others see more on the usability and functionality of websites.

Spash pages/splash screens are horrible, they are a waste of time to the clients (they have to click/wait just to see the content).

Flash menus are even worse, what do you do if a new user wants to view all of your webpages but has an OCD that forces then to open the navbar links in new tabs (me), you have now forced the client to do extra annoying work that may cost you a sale.

Flash is only good for header images, backgrounds, or for streaming meda. Otherwise just use html/css/scripts.

Splash pages should be banned from the internet.

The future of the web will include javascript effects that make the site easy to use and fun/interactive for users. In 10 years when all of the current youngsters are of age and buying stuff online, you know what they have grown up with? Fun instantly interactive cartoons, txting, myspaces, flashing graphics, funny contetnt, ect...

If companys don't follow the trends of making sites more and more fun/interactive they will lose business. why do you think google is top? They offer a new product almost every month and there search is instant (compared to yahoo,msn,ect... which take a while to process adds).

The future will demand instantly interactive usfull contnet.

Flash is content - simple!

Originally Posted by blue-dreamer

Flash is content - simple!

Flash should be left for design tactics.

I think flash has been around long enough that it is not going to all of a sudden take the internet by storm. The biggest reason is that the software is not affordable to the casual web designer, just the pros. This will always make these sites more valuable to some so I imagine that this is good for the industry but not for the average Joe.

I cant believe what I am hearing, so much so that I actually joined the forum to tell you how wrong you people are. All you Flash haters just dont have the ability or creativity to properly use the program. Flash is the Future 100%. No one has mentioned vector based animation for small file sizes, security features,and the ease of tweening animation. Combine 3D Rendering and adobe After Effects to get a mind blowing abilty to create anything your imagination can think of . Oh ya, Most important---- All cell phones will adopt Fash as the primary use for animation. Already in the works.I notice that much of the slams about flash are because of people who cant afford it or do not understand the use of the program. Inserting Flash into HTML is so easy and functionality for sites can still be maintained.People talk about Web 2.0 but that is just a anology of the combination of all web building resources. For the people who say that websites of the future are information driven have obvoiusly never visited a major car manufacture website. People seem to forget that advertising and promotion make up a major part of the internet. If information was such a major part of the internet then half of it would not be made up of vibrent media like Porno sites that are mainly in flash.

For the people who say that websites of the future are information driven have obvoiusly never visited a major car manufacture website

Information kind of is the purpose of websites. Also - car manufacturers are currently screwed more heavily than the average 19 y/o with a web-cam. I don't think they'll be leading the way in the field of product marketing in 2009. For a high growth subsection of the transport industry try bicycle manufacturers...

Anyway it's almost 9am and time for me to make a clay model (it's my new hobby for relieving stress) and start another day's dull dreary database-cleaning work. It's not all exciting programming, you know. Most of it is really dull typing, copying and pasting.

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

Information kind of is the purpose of websites. Also - car manufacturers are currently screwed more heavily than the average 19 y/o with a web-cam. I don't think they'll be leading the way in the field of product marketing in 2009. For a high growth subsection of the transport industry try bicycle manufacturers...

Car manufactures dont lead the industry in product marketing? You think the images of their cars on their sites are real? They spend millions just to render images of those cars to put on their websites.. Its funny because I am actually in product marketing and commercial design for a major brand name. Information driven and product marketing is spliting hairs but you dont read very much porn as its content in mainly visual. My point is that with out visual stimuli you lose customer apeal and no one will buy anything from a website that does not reflect this through graphic design. Most of the people on this site are programmers and being in the business we always laugh about how programmers dont know anything about commercial design. People buy an image not information but I guess thats why I am in the executive suite.

I'm not saying that the visual shenanegins of car manufacturers doesn't have a place, just that it is nothing to do with the direction online visual development follows, or indeed online design generally.

But what are you saying about "information driven" webdesign. How are you defining "information driven" websites? And by saying that we won't have them any more are you saying that the entire internet is just going to be one giant picasso which people just look at and sigh at and go "isn't that lovely" but don't interact with? Somebody better tell google to stop using all those pesky "words" and things before they go bankrupt.

But no, I'm being dense. You're differentiating between flash and non-flash by saying flash is visual and non-flash is information-driven. This is a bit silly, since flash is very information driven, and nonflash stuff is often very visually appealing - in fact Java, which I've predicted here as gaining a huge advantage on flash in 2009 to 2012, is much MORE visually appealing than flash in terms of what it can do. With java you can make your films and other visual motion about 10,000% more interactive than you can with flash.

Back in the old days when Aldus still owned the software underlying flash and the tool was called "Aldus Freehand" running on macs, that software was at its peak - producing graphic design for still printed matter. It was the best. In its modern form the Macromedia collection has become intensely involved with web media production and it does a good job. But the .swf has already become massively obsolete with the most common final-product of flash being .flv now, showing how things change in the world of machines without any warning. As for alternatives to .flv, well divx has always been a viable movie format and there's nothing, nothing at all, that an .flv can do which a divx can't.

Face it, Java's time is here, the 10 years of pointless swf's is over. I think that most functions of swfs can readily be ascribed to an occasional animated gif.

But you should embrace change and become a java expert. It's better than flash - you can do way more. The reason it didn't pick up in the past was that people's platforms weren't ready. Now they are - mobile phones, sat nav - all the stuff you mention - it's ready for java. Flash is really simple low-level technology with barely any capabilities. Give it a try. Unlike flash it's 100% free to develop in java and run java and enjoy java and learn java.

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

I'm not saying that the visual shenanegins of car manufacturers doesn't have a place, just that it is nothing to do with the direction online visual development follows, or indeed online design generally.

But what are you saying about "information driven" webdesign. How are you defining "information driven" websites? And by saying that we won't have them any more are you saying that the entire internet is just going to be one giant picasso which people just look at and sigh at and go "isn't that lovely" but don't interact with? Somebody better tell google to stop using all those pesky "words" and things before they go bankrupt.

But no, I'm being dense. You're differentiating between flash and non-flash by saying flash is visual and non-flash is information-driven. This is a bit silly, since flash is very information driven, and nonflash stuff is often very visually appealing - in fact Java, which I've predicted here as gaining a huge advantage on flash in 2009 to 2012, is much MORE visually appealing than flash in terms of what it can do. With java you can make your films and other visual motion about 10,000% more interactive than you can with flash.

Back in the old days when Aldus still owned the software underlying flash and the tool was called "Aldus Freehand" running on macs, that software was at its peak - producing graphic design for still printed matter. It was the best. In its modern form the Macromedia collection has become intensely involved with web media production and it does a good job. But the .swf has already become massively obsolete with the most common final-product of flash being .flv now, showing how things change in the world of machines without any warning. As for alternatives to .flv, well divx has always been a viable movie format and there's nothing, nothing at all, that an .flv can do which a divx can't.

Face it, Java's time is here, the 10 years of pointless swf's is over. I think that most functions of swfs can readily be ascribed to an occasional animated gif.

But you should embrace change and become a java expert. It's better than flash - you can do way more. The reason it didn't pick up in the past was that people's platforms weren't ready. Now they are - mobile phones, sat nav - all the stuff you mention - it's ready for java. Flash is really simple low-level technology with barely any capabilities. Give it a try. Unlike flash it's 100% free to develop in java and run java and enjoy java and learn java.

No,no,no. I think you are getting way to defensive about html,xml,JavaScripting and so on. I think from what I have heard that you have not really used Flash or have mis-interpret the funtion of the program along with many people on this site. Flash's roots are in vectors and tweening objects which is very powerful without saying. Flash excels at its ability for optimization, security, easing,animation,compatibility,just to name a few off hand.

As for html.xml.and javascipting,they all work fine for functionality of websites but designer perfer to work with palets rather then code. Sure you can create great function with JavaSrcipt but to actually create content you need Flash. Saying Flash is obsolete is like saying that a pencil and paper does not have functionality. Programmers create functionality but they do not actually create content. I can not believe that you actually go as far to say that Flash is a low-level technology. Look at any substantial site worth mentioning and Flash is at the forefront. I know for a fact that people who use Javascript hate ActionScript because it is so different. Do not fear what you dont understand. They do not pay the big money for JavaScripting and I am sure much of the tension for this discussion steems from this.

Also I never said that information was not a major portion of the web, only that design and information are both essential. Web 2.0 is all about knowing and understand the strengths and weakness of all platform to develop great website. To say that Flash is a low level technology is just 100% pure non-sense and reflects your knowlege of the industry. Oh and dont think that Adobe is not going to be adding new upgrades to their bag of tricks. People seem to forget that ADOBE is the master when it come to web development in which they run the show . Its funny because Adobe is right down the street from Google. You could say that's an analogy for the importance between information and design.

Embrace Flash,Enjoy Flash, Understand Flash.

Why not just say that Flash will be "in" the future. Whether or not it will "be" depends on various conditions:
1. First thing: Search engines must somehow be able to read flash content.
2. Flash must be easier to use
3. Flash must not require expensive/paid software to create
4. Flash must be lighter/faster
5. Flash must be widely installed on most computers
6. Backward compatibility, I have seen many applications require the latest version of Flash to run.