Flash v HTML

Why flash is better than HTML... as many reasons as you can come up with... I'm in an in depth argument, so a good 50 or 60 reasons should suffice...

I mean I do EVERYTHING in flash (applications, full fledge sites, reporting applications, content management systems etc.), and this dude thinks flash is "counterproductive"...

Your words are appreciated

Flash isn't better than HTML.

In fact, saying Flash is better than HTML is pretty much like saying a Car is better than a House.

My point being that they are two entirely different things with two entirely different purposes. I can't even think of any other similarities between them other than some websites are created using them.

Without HTML there is no Flash!

'nuff said

ditto

Agreed whole-heartedly... I use both for different purposes,
HTML/PHP/SQL for web pages. (with a pretty flash header or something)
Flash/PHP/SQL for some apps or things that have to look more attractive and flowing.

No, without HTML there is no Flash embedded in an HTML file. The plugin still displays a .swf file in a browser if it isn't embedded, it just doesn't look as nice and isn't a good idea.

he might have just been saying in terms of web technology history

Pretty much HUH!
Also, to write anything on a pc program it uses HTML It is like the alphabet to us

I was thinking that he wasn't asking it in the way that you guys thought he was. I think that just like he was asking, is animation better- flash websites, or are static pages better. Maybe in terms of how it appeals to an audience? Personally i think flash is 'better'. But it would be even 'better' if i knew how to use flash mx

Even then it is all depending on what you are using it for. I wouldn't want to build a site like kirupa.com, flashkit.com or actionscript.org all in Flash, that indeed would be counterproductive and just plain pointless.

In the end it comes down to useage and personal prefence.

Some Clarifications...

I was simply asking in a 'general' perspective, is flash better than HTML... for sites not updated more than once or twice a week...

Well I think I made my vote clear... heh. That would be for HTML... Not that theres anything wrong with flash sites, I just find HTML to be better than Flash (ironically I am working on my first Flash site.... lol)

you need to consider accessibility to your site as well. some slightly-blind people may want bigger fonts. or completely blind people may want they text read out. if you use flash then all the browser reads is one file, rather than lots of text and pictures and stuff. also, search engines won't pick up on anything within a flash file. and not everybody has a flash plug-in as well. granted, most people have Flash 4 or above, but not everyone. no plug-in needed for html.

i do a lot of work in flash, but we mustn't forget the neccessity of html.

HTML site would be alot easier to manage if you update it 2x a week. It also depends on how much you are updating. If it is a minimal amount then go with flash, but if it quite a bit of info being re-arranged then go with HTML!

My thoughts -- I have one computer that's a rabbit -- and one that's a turtle. Intel Celeron 1 Ghz vs. a 7 year old Intel P150 -- I can barely view flash pages on my old one, and I'm sure there's quite a few out there that are still using Dinosaurs.

I love Flash pages (that are done with some thought), but I'll take an HTML page that loads in half a second over Flash any day of the week.