Note to Adobe: Noticing much more problems?

Question

I wanted to post an honest discussion with someone from the
Adobe Flash team just so we can guide the future of Flash for
version 10. I know it's still early and a long way from that as
most of us battle with our AS3 migration, but I wanted to add my
two cents for an honest discussion. I am hoping some honest Adobe
Flash team members can engage us in this as well.
First of all, I have been a Flash designer / animator /
programmer / teacher since Flash 2. Macromedia bought FutureSplash
and released Flash 2. I have been with it all the way and love it.
It has always been the best tool for me as a visual person who
loves to put things together. It allowed me to be both designer and
programmer. I have always loved it even with the difficulties of
some of the progression of ActionScript such as the move to AS2.
But I have to say the AS3 migration from those who have been
in the Flash camp for along time leaves me baffled. I understand
why AS3 is completely new. It has to leverage Flex and had to be
built around a whole new Virtual Machine in the player. I am amazed
with what the team has been able to accomplish; however, the
differences between AS2 and AS3 are too different and haven't
properly been structured and documented from the designer's
perspective. Designers pushing the boundaries of what Flash could
do is what made Flash a popular player in the browser. Each step of
the way designers have had to make way to programmers coming over
from other languages. I have no problem with that, but each step
takes things away from designers and animators in order to give
programmers their way of understanding. This is a slap in the face
to those who have helped make Flash a truly universal product. I
don't think any designers have a problem with programmers jumping
on board, but things shouldn't have been taken away along the way
for those who were very comfortable with the Object Orientation of
Flash as it was. Flash has always been Object Oriented. Remember
when Macromedia took away "Normal" vs "Expert" scripting mode and
how pissed some people were? The change to AS3 makes that look
juvenile.
The reason I start this thread is not to attack Adobe. I just
would like to start a good discussion to see if we designers can
add something to the next round since things have been taken away
from us. I give you this example. The foundation of good Flash
projects (not gaudy long intros....I mean honest, well-thought out
projects that preloaded some parts and got ready to play with
enough data) was usually built around loadMovieNum. The analogy of
levels and layers was the foundation of every good solid project.
That has since been replaced with the DisplayObject.addChild();
functionality which is fine. I am not questioning the usefulness of
that. However, the exact foundation of all versions of Flash up to
version 9 has now been taken away. Can someone from Adobe answer
why things were taken away? Also, can a similar analogy be
implemented into Flash v10? If not, why not?
Any other examples anyone else wants to list? Go ahead, there
are plenty.
Once again I will state that I have no problem with AS3 and
willing to learn it. Most of my projects are being converted and
new projects are built around it. I just find it silly that I can't
simply build a class that tells the main timeline to simply play();
using root or parent as a timeline itself. What Adobe has forced
the long-time users to do is move backward and learn their product
all over again from scratch by taking things away thereby canceling
the years of experience that we all gained since 1997.
Have there been any discussions at Adobe about how to help
bring designers back into the discussion of Flash and how best to
ensure the Flash IDE maintains its visual approach for those who
choose to work that way?
There are many more points I can discuss but I don't want
this to be any longer than it needs to be. And I know there will be
many programmer types who don't understand and try to flame me. I
just hope there is an honest discussion of how to ensure the
knowledge built over the years does not have to be fully
abandoned.

Answer 1

RDcollege,
I'd like to echo bnailWedge's encouragement to keep your
chin up. I
don't think your post sounds like an attack, which (to my
thinking) is a
great way to invite constructive input and useful discussion,
so let's see
who else weighs in on this thread. :)
We all come from different backgrounds, so it's hard to give
assurances
to everyone. Personally, I came to Flash with an English
degree, a love for
multimedia, and enough natural artistic talent that the
notion of a Flash
career wasn't patently out of the question. ActionScript was
difficult for
me at first, but I wanted so badly to make things bounce
around -- without
the constraints of the timeline -- that I was bewitched into
trying again
and again (and again and again) until, after years, concepts
started falling
into place for me.
I'm enough of a nerd (ask my wife!) that, somehow, I've
managed to teach
myself programming to a degree that I now consult and develop
full time. As
a kid, I wouldn't have thought I'd be a programmer one day,
but I'm glad
things have turned out as they have, because programming
helps me accomplish
what I want from a design standpoint. I remember what it was
like to learn
this stuff -- as Macromedia kept rolling it out! -- and that
helps me
empathize with your post. I'm not a computer science
graduate. I don't
have any background with Java or C, which means I'm not the
sort of person
at which Flex is aimed. I like Flex Builder well enough, I'm
still firmly a
Flash dude, and I don't see myself changing.
I remember when Flash MX 2004 dropped Normal Mode, and I
remember the
outcry. I also saw that feature resurrected (in somewhat
different form) as
Script Assist in Flash 8. It's still present in Flash CS3,
just not as
useful (my opinion) when used with ActionScript 3.0. But
frankly, how many
people truly put together a complex project -- like you were
saying,
"honest, well-thought out projects that preloaded some parts
and got ready
to play with enough data" -- in Normal Mode? Complex projects
get easier, I
think, when you can type the code in yourself.
> I just find it silly that I can't simply build a class
that tells the main
> timeline to simply play(); using root or parent as a
timeline itself.
This part piques my interest, because the main timeline in
an
ActionScript 3.0 document is, by default, a subclass of the
MovieClip class.
You can optionally write your own document class to extend
Sprite instead,
but as a MovieClip instance, the main timeline indeed
responds to movie clip
methods such as play(). Can you provide more detail?
One of the examples I generally discuss when talking about
AS3 is the
way event handling has been simplified. Prior to AS3, there
were a boatload
of ways to handle events, everything from on() and
onClipEvent() to their
dot notation replacements (onRelease = funtion():Void {}), to
addListener()
(Stage, MovieClipLoader, Mouse) to addEventListener
(components). To
someone growing up on Macromedia, each new approach was a
relatively small
tool/burden to add to the arsenal -- but to new a newcomer
... good heavens!
Why should there be so many? Which approach to use where? In
AS3, almost
eveything (with very few exceptions!) is addEventListener().
Colin Moock wrote an article recently that speaks to this
topic and made
a lot of sense to me. I think it may give you some
encouragement.
http://www.insideria.com/2008/01/actionscript-30-is-it-hard-or.html
For what it's worth, I'm working on a new title for O'Reilly
that's also
aimed at this topic. I wouldn't be surprised at all if other
publishers do
the same. As kglad mentioned, you can always submit to the
official feature
request form.
> Any other examples anyone else wants to list? Go ahead,
there
> are plenty.
When you mentioned this, you were referring to levels and
layers, hoping
a similar analogy would be implemented into Flash CS4. Levels
are gone in
AS3, true, but even during the loadMovieNum() days,
loadMovie() allowed for
content to be loaded into a movie clip instead. To me, that
puts the idea
of movie clips and levels into the same category (and in a
sense, they were
the same thing). Is that really so different from the current
display list
metaphor? The display list is still hierarchical. Layers, of
course, are
still present in the Timeline panel, so those haven't
changed.
If you list other specifics, I'll be happy to discuss them.
Not sure if
I can make them seem useful, but I'll try. :)
David Stiller
Co-author, Foundation Flash CS3 for Designers
http://tinyurl.com/2k29mj
"Luck is the residue of good design."