It is truly annoying that you have to totally whitelist their domain even after step D in order to see the site. Some of us want to selectively enable each flash applet, dangit. #KidsGetOffMyLawn
It's actually going to be a pretty common problem as we see more and more interfaces being built _visually_ for HTML5, while audio will lag behind due to the non-standard implementations in everything but Chrome. We'll start seeing more and more libraries that do audio heavy lifting in Flash, but expose their functionality over ExternalInterface. So where do you put a small Flash applet that Flash-blocking power users might need to click on, but otherwise shows no graphics whatsoever? How do you make it easy/big-enough for Flash blockers to click, but unobtrusive enough to not intercept any DOM elements?
I'd love to see a replacement for SWFObject that just brings up a modal dialog in the case where Flash is blocked, allowing you to click-to-enable the applet.
Indeed. I'm very much looking forward to ditching flash on beatlab.com when I can.
The HTML WebAudio API isn't quite there yet, but it's making great progress. It is already deployed in Chrome, with releases in Safari and iOS on the way. I actually have a branch going that uses the WebAudio API to mix sounds and doesn't rely on flash at all.
Sooo you come to a site requiring flash with a add on flash blocker and complain it doesn't support you well... Maybe you're doing it wrong. If you can't get your own custom modules to work either don't use them or figure out how to use them better, don't get mad at someone else for not supporting your custom setup better.
I could turn off javascript and spend all day criticizing websites, I don't think any one would give too much care.
The only thing that's "broken" here is that the site redirects you before you have any chance to enable plugins for the page.
Your Javascript comparison is inaccurate, no one is demanding the site should work without Flash. If a site redirected you before you could click on noscript (or whatever Javascript blocker) to load all scripts, I bet you there would be a lot of complaints.
All flash blockers let you cherry pick which flash you want to unblock. This means you can unblock content, but keep spam or other cpu wasters blocked.
This website does not let me do that. It redirect to a different page, and forces me to white list everything. Something I rarely do.
I haven't seen such a broken site (for me) in a few years.
That's quite hard on a one-man show which is in the edge of not requiring flash, for requiring flash.
I would reserve such harsh criticism for sites I have to visit and which are not even intended to work: city council, theatre box office, local public library. Heck, even the London Olympics user experience was broken, I read.
Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. The non-flash experience does leave a lot to be desired. As you know, I always have to weigh investing time improving it vs improving something else. But I realize that isn't much consolation to the end user.
One of the difficult parts is actually detecting if flash is blocked at all. If the user has Google Chrome's built-in plugin blocker, I don't think it's possible to distinguish between a blocked plugin or a slow loading plugin.
Exactly this.
I'm not implying I'm entitled to special handling, just stating the fact that this page, unlike any other with flash I've used in the last years, doesn't let me use my flash blocker in the usual way - I would have to whitelist the page.
a) I visit the page
b) I get redirected to http://www.beatlab.com/flash_blocked.html
c) I click on the blocked flash to unblock it, like on every other site.
d) I get a "Flash has been unblocked! You may continue to beatlab."
e) I click the link and end up at a)
:(