These pundits point out the purported penetration of Flash on web-enabled 'puters (97% as reported here) is reason enough to pooh-pooh Apple's product.

I say "pshaw".

Now, I'll lay off the alliteration, although I'm sure you'll agree that it was fun while it lasted.

A need for tea leaves

What isn't at all clear is how many web sites that use Flash are doing so in a robust fashion. What do I mean by robust? I mean using Flash to do more than blink text, create rollover buttons, distract you with animated banner ads, or display video content.

Let's take the riastats.com page referenced and screen captured above. It's a simple web site displaying three pie charts to illustrate the relative market share of Flash, Silverlight, and Java. A perfect use for a pie chart, my third grade teacher would have said. 

Problem is, I need Flash to view it. If I don't have Flash, but have Java, I still can't view it. Same goes for Silverlight. And woe to he who has none of the above.

What the what?

But that's really not the point (though it is funny in a ha-ha-I-hit-my-funny-bone kind of way).

The point is that the site requires Flash to visually communicate information that has no inherent need to be communicated in Flash.

Google has a free charts API that works exceptionally well on all devices. No Flash necessary.

Folks are even experimenting (2) with CSS 3 to create charts, which actually is a great approach from the perspective of accessibility. Note in the overlay image below how a browser with no styling (say, that of someone using a screen reader) retains the semantic underpinnings of our message. 

So that's one Flash site that doesn't need to use Flash and would serve the Internet community better without it. How many others are out there? Think how many sites you've come across where one tiny component of the site requires Flash. It's seems apparent to me that the vast majority of Flash sites aren't using it for any meaningful purpose. 

Flashback

I've built many Flash-powered web sites in my past. Why? Because it was once the only game in town. It offered a lot of bang for the buck, in terms of fancy transitions and a rich way to display content.

But with the advent of upcoming standards like HTML5 and CSS 3, many of the typical uses for Flash are easily replicated.

MS Victim

The lone fly in the Replace-Flash-with-Open-Standards Ointment, as always, is Microsoft. They just can't get it together with their web browser, Internet Explorer. The vector of choice for hackers, it doesn't correctly support established standards from years back, let alone modern ones.

So while Firefox, Chrome, and Safari users enjoy modern presentation techniques offered by HTML 5 and CSS 3, Windows users who are bound to Internet Explorer (whether by hook, crook or IT's policy book) do not. The good news is that Microsoft claims IE 9 will adhere to much of (not all) HTML 5 and CSS 3. I'm not holding my breath. Microsoft only recently shipped IE 8, their first browser that adhered to CSS 2.1, an 11-year-old standard.

The No Flash Zen

I view the Great Flash Debate as a perfect opportunity for developers like me to step back and focus on the Zen of what we're trying to accomplish, and consider whether we're introducing eye candy only for the sake of sizzle -- the design analogue of screaming to be heard in a room full of carnival barkers.