"SWF is Not Flash" by Jacek Artymiak and "SVG On The Rise" by Dean Jackson are contrasting articles on the SWF (Flash) and SVG formats that, while both are well articulated, fail to highlight what truly differentiates the two formats.
Artymiak piece is well articulated in pointing out some misconceptions of the SWF format and offering valid arguments in its defense. Jackson's rebuttal piece is equally as articulate in bringing to light some important facts on the implementation and adoption of SVG and making further clarifications on Artymiak's piece.
I found myself siding with the SWF format. This was somewhat surprising to me since I tend to favor open source and open standards. However in taking a step back and looking at the larger picture, I felt SWF currently provides a better solution overall.
> SWF is more then just a vector graphics and animation format. Comparing SWF and SVG is not apples and oranges, but rather apples and a fruit basket. Through recent iterations, SWF can support embedded forms, script, user interface components and XML feeds. While the ability to embed SVG graphics in XHTML files and read view the source is attractive, in order to match the capabilities of SWF, SVG needs to be combined with other specifications and technologies such as SMIL, ECMAScript to name a couple.
> Artmyiak points out and Jackson admits that SVG et al are lacking an integrated mature development tool like Flash. While many tools have added (or will) SVG support to their software, this does not match the depth, sophistication or ease of use that SWF tools like Flash provide. Remember, graphics are usually (and should) be done by designers and not coders.
> Jackson's arguments did not address users, but were very focused on the SVG advantages for developers such as the ability to view source and better integration with existing web technologies. I'm a developer so this does appeal to me in comparison to SWF, but I kept asking myself what about users? What advantage does SVG provide users that SWF does not? Will a user care that they can read the code or that it integrates better with existing technologies? Why should they download a SVG plug-in? In this context Jackson's pro-SVG arguements is lacking and flawed.
These points stated, I continue to be disappointed that so much of the recent debate has been on the multimedia, particularly vector graphics, capabilities of Flash. The argument of which is the better vector graphics or multimedia platform is increasing one of splitting hairs as the two will become essentially more similar over time.
As I've said before, the more important point and key differentiator of SWF and Flash is its added ability to deliver lightweight yet rich applications over the Web. In recent releases the format has added integrated scripting, forms support, XML streams support and user interface components. Here the standards driven space presently lacks an answer or focus that I wish they'd spend some time.
Leave a comment