flash content is not loading i mozila

[suresh1]

"<PARAM NAME=movie VALUE='".$flash_file.$u."library_path=".$library_path."&stage_width=".$width."&stage_height=".$height."&php_source=".$php_source;

if($license!=null){$html.="&license=".$license;}

$html.="'> <PARAM NAME=quality VALUE=high> <PARAM NAME=bgcolor VALUE=#".$bg_color.">

 

 

  Above php code is used to loading content in flash player, but it is working fine in IE, it is not working in mozila,

            Give me any suggestions

      Thanks in adv..............

[nrg_alpha]

suresh1,

 

This is the second time you post a non-regex solution into the regex forum. I moved it to PHP_Help. Please take note of this forum (or note the 'Other' forum from the 'Client Side' section - which deals with stuff like flash and whatnot). Since your code is using some PHP, I figured I'd place it here (PHP_Help) instead.

 

For future reference, please don't post non-regex threads in the regex forum. Have a look at all the forums we offer, and choose the most appropriate one and post in that.

 

Cheers

[.josh]

It is not working in mozilla because you are not using the proper tags for mozilla. Mozilla uses embed tags.  This is not a php question either.

[ToonMariner]

you should NOT use embed tags - they are deprecated....

 

in order to get this working cross browser you need to use the feature where a browser will display what is in side an abject if that plugin cannot be loaded... in the case of flash use this...

 

                  <object id="myId" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="100%" height="100%"> 
                    <param name="movie" value="/path/to/flash/file.swf" /> 
                    <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" />
                    <param name="flashvars" value="xmlPath=/path/to/xml/file.xml" /> 
                    <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> 
                    <param name="wmode" value="opaque" /> <!-- use if you want to overlay elements on top of flash -->
                    <!--[if !IE]>--> 
                    <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="/path/to/flash/fle.swf" width="100%" height="100%"> 
                      <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /> 
                      <param name="flashvars" value="xmlPath=/path/to/xml/file.xml" /> 
                      <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> 
                      <param name="wmode" value="opaque" /> 
                      <!--<![endif]-->
<p>You need to flash installed to view this content.</p>
<p><a href="http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/">Download Flash Plugin</a></p>
<!-- you could put a whole load of markup in here which would be rendered if flash is not available -->
                    <!--[if !IE]>--> 
                    </object>
                    <!--<![endif]--> 
                  </object>

[nrg_alpha]

...This is not a php question either.

 

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to move this here or in 'Other'. Being I'm not versed in flash objects and how to implement it into pages and since the OP states using PHP code to load flash content, I moved it here. My apologies...

[.josh]

understandable.  But nonetheless, simply using php to echo it out IMO does not make it a php question :/

 

as far as embed being deprecated...hmm didn't know that.  thx for the info.

[haku]

I've already given the OP the answer to this question three times. Use swfobject.

 

I don't know if his English isn't good enough to understand, or if he is just too stupid, but he keeps asking the same question, and ignoring the answer.

 

Although maybe he can work with what Toon Mariner gave him.

[ToonMariner]

SWF object is not the ideal solution. It markets itself as an 'accessible' solution and too many have taken that at face value.

 

This is not to undermine the work that has been done on swfobject - they have done some capital stuff, its just people don't realize its impact.

 

You should 'never' rely on one technology to implement another.  Apparently 98% of capable browsers (by that I mean browser that support the flash plugin) have it installed. Of those a huge proportion have the latest version.

 

Compare that with an estimated number of clients with no javascript - 90%.  This either that they simply dont have it or (much more likely) javascript has been disabled for security as in some large organisations).

 

So by using the usual swfobject implementation you actually prevent more people from viewing your flash than those they don't have the plugin installed.

 

The only real benefit I could possibly vouch for is registering the object to detect the pulgin version but then you'd expect the flashplayer plugin to be able to inform the user that they need to upgrade (don't know if its capable of that but it would make sense).

[.josh]

estimated 90% of users have js disabled eh? I'd like to see where you got that number...we use tracking systems like google analytics, yahoo analytics, and omniture's site catalyst with our clients at my job; lots of big name companies that get upwards of a million hits a day.  Numbers show us an estimated 2% of users do not have javascript enabled.  That metric calculated by number of noscript image requests generated vs. total hits.

[Philip]

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

 

I think you have that backwards my friend.

[ToonMariner]

woot - JS has increased!

 

Fact remains - if you have flash installed you want to be able to view flash even if javascript is off.

 

More people still have the plugin available than javascript.

[.josh]

More people still have the plugin available than javascript.

 

Again, I'd like to see where you're getting your numbers.  javascript is native, built-in to browsers.  Flash is a plugin.  Without even looking at the numbers it would be logical to put your chips on javascript being more widely enabled.

[nrg_alpha]

I personally feel flash is over rated. Perhaps my dislike of flash stems from all those photography portfolio sites I've seen that over do flash so much it's a pain to get the page to download (even on broadband from what I read from other users' feedback!) So yeah, that kind of killed flash for me. Most people don't know how to use it in moderation, and instead decide to do the whole damn site in flash.

 

They are so impressed with it they think it's the best thing since sliced bread. What they fail to grasp is that not only is it overkill (in their cases anyway) which sucks so much unnecessary visitors' [as well as their own] monthly bandwidth, but they also fail to see that it doesn't take long for the 'novelty' to wear off for the users who did for some god forsaken reason stick it out through the long download times. Not everyone cares about elaborate flash intros and fancy animated buttons and the like.

[ToonMariner]

@nrg_alpha I kind of agree - not with standing how you implement flash is slightly different matter.  To that end if you are going to implement anything on your site use the right tool/technology for the job...

[.josh]

To that end if you are going to implement anything on your site use the right tool/technology for the job...

 

Now that I will agree with. 

[nrg_alpha]

Well, if you've seen the flash sites I have.. perhaps it would turn you off too

Definitely agree about using the right tool / technology for the job. Just that many people don't know better and go full tilt in the wrong direction. Granted, I have seen some very well done flash sites that don't feel over done / intrusive. I just personally couldn't care less about that kind of stuff.

[.josh]

It's a matter of perspective.  Balancing form and function is not easy.  There are plenty of sites out there on both sides of the spectrum.  Many go too far with form, at the expense of function, but many also go too far with function, at the expense of form.  Coders tend to lean towards function.  They are predisposed to have bias against form.  At best, they will look at it as  how it measures up to function, instead of how it stands on its own.  Or in other words, they tend to think that there is no value to form if there is no function.  Non-coders on the other hand, tend to lean more towards form.  They want the pretty girlfriend, even if she's useless and spends all their money.  They want the $100k uber-car, even though it's a gas guzzler and that $5k car is more dependable.  They want the 3 story, 20 room mansion, even though they are a bachelor and are rarely even home to begin with. 

 

One can argue that it doesn't matter how shiny a site is, if it doesn't work, people won't use it.  But you can equally argue that no matter how efficient and secure something is, handles every circumstance that may come up, etc.. if it's not shiny, people simply won't be interested enough to give it a try.

[nrg_alpha]

Agreed, CV. It is indeed all about balance.

Given I am an artist first, you would think I would choose form over function... but I also have a bit of 'programmer-ism' in me.. and I am seeing how too much form is a bad thing if it over powers the function aspect. So yeah, I agree with balancing both. But to many others, it is apparently easier said than done (they are either all artistic or programmers), which often yields to things being one sided as you pretty much mentioned.

 

The sites I speak of are from people who are not interesting in development whatsoever. They learn a bit of flash and just splash-damage the crap out of their site with it (thus putting form (and bad form at that) first). A true turn off IMO. But yeah, I've also seen flash used moderately, which works in those cases (however there is more bad sites than good ones). Over all, I don't plan on incorporating any flash into my site. I learned it years back, and certainly is nice technology if used wisely.. but it's not my thing TBH. While I used to love the 'Bells 'N Whistles' aspect of sites, I now prefer sites that are lean, fast and functional (with half decent visual presentation at the very least - the artistic side of me still loves attractive visuals).

[ToonMariner]

@crayon flash stats it is an independant survey.

 

so by that you would prevent 4% (based on the 95% level of js enabled browsers) from seeing te content you intended...

 

Flash is actually pretty good - its like anything else computer related - its only as good/bad as the person who wrote it.  Watch out for silverlight - I am starting to eat my hat on how well it would be able to penetrate the market; and honestly? its pretty good too

[.josh]

I think if you allow for +/- margin of errors for both js and flash, and also account for the fact that that number coincidentally just so happens to come from the people who own the product (independent survey my ass. where does it say that? I see nowhere where it says that.  I see how it was supposedly done by Millward Brown but that does not mean it's independent)...I do not count that 4% discrepancy for shit.

[ToonMariner]

4% on the web is a HUGE number of people!!!

 

would you have an online store and automatically prohibit 4% of the people on the web using it? I doubt it.  Fact is that these results are easy to obtain and in such enormous volumes that they  are a very very good guide to the state of the web as reliable as the w3c stats.

 

And yes Millward Brown are independent - they are very much like TNS in that they collate information for business to consume - hence it better be worth consuming.

 

Anyhoo this was about how to implement flash on your page - and how to be as inclusive/standards compliant (and the rest of it) as possible...

 

To that end the nested object tag with some good markup within the inner object to explain what would be delivered if the user had flash (and maybe a link to install it) is IMO the better solution.

[Philip]

4% on the web is a HUGE number of people!!!

 

would you have an online store and automatically prohibit 4% of the people on the web using it? I doubt it.  Fact is that these results are easy to obtain and in such enormous volumes that they  are a very very good guide to the state of the web as reliable as the w3c stats.

 

But that 4% may not be their audience. Let's say I have a online shop aimed towards the geekier side (e.g. thinkgeek.com). More of your audience is likely to have js/flash because they are more aware of the technologies - thus that 4% would drop to maybe 1% or less. Now, let's say I have an online shop aimed towards the elderly. I'm less likely to use fancier/complicated scripts/designs because that's not who my audience is. You want something more straight forward because hell, if they are anything like my grandparents they are still running WinXP with IE 6. Lets face it, the odds of them having js/flash enabled and having a computer to support it is a lot smaller than the tech-based part of society.

 

It's not necessarily about the technology & whats the newest and best at the time, it's about how you implement it into your website as a strategy based off of your audience.

 

@OP - sorry for getting us off your original topic

[haku]

I agree. Many users who have javascript turned off are working in companies, and won't be surfing the web for pleasure anyways. And another significant portion of that will be people browsing from cellphones - which isn't exactly the best medium for flash content. Then you have users like me - who have javascript turned off, and turn it on if there is something in particular we want to see.

 

Swfobject has always worked for me - easy to implement, cross-browser compatible, and valid code.

[ToonMariner]

guys you are missing the point - it isn't about who your target audience is - its about the correct implementation of a technology.

 

Its all down to opinion but simply put - I don't want to miss out on flash when I have flash installed and javascript off - thats annoying. That is someone preventing my browser do what I want it to do because you they decided to implement one technology only if another one - which is completely unrelated - is present.

 

Can you see why that is wrong?

[xcoderx]

Making a flash site is not worth it do u guys agree?