* not a standard – so as of today, the main dynamic management of the web is controlled by a company which can change its strategy at anytime. I’m not a communist, but I still think that the web shall be open, and standardized.

* you’d better not be blind – or disabled – if you visit a Flash-powered web site. A complete Flash-based interface cannot be translated by screen lecture devices. Most Flash websites can’t be handled by the keyboard. Clearly, it’s for some part a designer issue – not a Flash issue – but Flash just told them “add these shiny graphics and animations to your web! your web is important, not the user who wants to explore it!”. Which is a pity.

So while there are good stuff built with Flash (you named it, youtube – or any kind of video-based technologies; web games are also good uses of Flash), building a complete web interface in Flash today is quite a cynical move: “sorry if you’re disabled; anyway, I don’t care disabled people, they don’t look good in my community”.

If the goal is to build an interface, javascript css can do wonderful things. Granted, it might be a bit more complex. But it’s going to be a lot more accessible.

Did I say that I don’t like Flash?

I never said Flash was static (in fact, I said it broke the web out of it’s static birth). I said Flash was not ideal for website interfaces. You’re talking about Flash running Web APPLICATIONS. That’s something COMPLETELY different. And as far as Flash being not data-driven, while I agree it can be done, why beat your head against a wall to make a platform do something it wasn’t meant to do?

Granted, there are some VERY impressive applications built on Flash (Youtube anyone?), but my argument was that Flash is not ideal for a general web interface.

Clearly you haven’t seen a copy of Flash since the Web 1.0 days.

With serious applications like desktoptwo being done in Flash, I’d suggest doing your homework before calling Flash static, or suggesting that Flash isn’t data driven.