Forum:Embedded Flash

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Embedded Flash

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6155 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well, during my further boredom and trying to think of things to do, using a bit of Javascript magic, I've now made it possible for flash to be embedded in pages; this is an example; it's experimental at the moment so don't start flying around adding flash to pages at the moment since it's quite possible it might be changed or moved and such. I've provided some wholesome violence for you, please note you might need to refresh. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

400@400@fullurl://www.kungfo0.org/theweb/fight/extravaganza.swf

I have to say, you never cease to impress me, Oli. The lengths to which you will go just to make your life more full are farther than anyone else I've ever seen here. Except, of course, Spang, but that's a different story . . .-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great. This is a billion zillion times better than embedded YouTube videos and animated GIFs (or maybe I just like stick figure animations). --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Freaking flash embedden in freakin uncyc. Well, whoop di doo.

I do not see the bleeding problem . -- Vosnul 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I smell UnGrounds? --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Template:Flash, in order to hide the naughty bits and make it easier to upgrade/modify this feature in the future. Please use this template when including flash files. --Algorithm 03:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, on further consideration, I'm thinking this could get EXTREMELY annoying, EXTREMELY quickly. (Example: Embedding an invisible flash file that plays really loud music onto every page you can.) So, for the time being, I'm limiting this feature to user pages. If you want to show a flash file, you can link to the user page containing it. --Algorithm 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what me and Mhaille were saying; I suggest we allow free reign for now though, see how it goes and restrict it if neccesary... benefit of the doubt and all that -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's "Mhaille and I". It IS something I've been hoping would be added to Uncyclopedia for a long, long time, but at the same time recognise the need to limit its use, for obvious reasons. Could we fix that code so that it is only allowed for User:Mhaille as I think that's the best way to deal with this issue. :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I hate flash. Whatever happened to good old hyperlinks? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:11, 27 May 2007

See... it's not about what you think, it's about what we can actually do... and by the way, User Pages only? now you're just defeating the object. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 06:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is about what I think insofar as it is about what the community thinks, and I am a member of the community. I'm yet to be convinced that having flash on a page could improve an article, any more than being able to use a video service other than YouTube. And I'm not such a great fan of the YouTube extension either. And it was Algorithm who restricted it to userspace, not me, so I don't know why you said that. I do agree with that approach for now though. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:16, 27 May 2007

I agree with Prof Oli Sir Duke Kick Ass Fuck 'em 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see what people do with it. I don't think the YouTube extension has been too abused as yet. Plus if we have a template for it, we can see exactly what it's been used for via WhatLinksHere, unlike the YouTube one. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Over at dramatica they have been embedding flesh for years and years, look where that got them --Vosnul 13:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course - we also need a script that automatically stops Goatse, or we'll be overrun within the week...  :-P -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 14:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Just imagine a scalable vector animated version of goatse, You could zoom in for ever without the picture getting coarse.. AARGGGGGGG.. --Vosnul 15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends how many retards actually know it exists... I'd say we're pretty safe for now and I think playing it by ear is the best way to go -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a template doesn't stop people from substing it in, or copying the code over. I'm just seeing way too much potential for abuse to let this thing run free. --Algorithm 20:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps an option next to their log out button (or even in the menu) to allow them to disable the loading of flash stuff? (and obviously optionally re-enable it) in fact... on any page with flash, we could actually just create a small header on the page that informs them of this and let's them click a link to show it or not show it before anything happens, how about that? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done it; refresh your browser and you'll see an option to allow you to choose whether to view the flash or not. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Out of interest, is there any way to make a template cease to work if it's substed in? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes no difference if you subst it in or not, the code still functions in the same way. but to prove the point, I'll subst this template on here. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shockwave Flash is sometimes used for animated pop-up advertising. All of those "shock the monkey", "outdrink Ted Kennedy", "punchout Arnold Schwarzenegger", etc ads use flash. But then you need flash to see certain web sites, and to see videos and hear music. Flash is sort of like Java's evil cousin or something. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, java's slow and horrible and makes your computer cry when it loads... it also burns your crops and kills your family -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is that there was a typo in that flash movie and it made me cry :( ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 06:18, 28 May 2007

I prefered the method that was there yesterday where the message just appeared at the top of the article - at the moment the page won't display at all until I've clicked that message away. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I changed it since the obvious caveat with that is that you are less likely to notice the message... not to mention it now allows you to edit your uncyclopedia.js to insert a variable to auto-enable/disable it anyway, although I'm open to feedback and if people thing it's a better idea to not hide the page then it can be changed back. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not implement a confirm box within a box of the same height and width as the flash box itself ? Sort of like some ad-blockers tear away flash ads but do not destroy the layout of the page. And if you condone one flash object then , if any, others can be accessed to ( not wishing that multiple flash decorations are ever needed anyway. The current method is a bit upsetting -- Vosnul 11:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about doing exactly that. I might see how that goes, seeing as we seem to be adding the features first, then discussing them later now. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:03, 28 May 2007

Whoa... hands off... I think I'll wait for a few more opinions now we have something defined. don't touch, it's not your baby. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't break a sweat, I think everybody trusts you enough to make the thing work, It's just that , although I enjoy the concept of live hacking myself since this is what I do( with F#*$king big robots and large expensive machines ( yey fun ! )) besides wasting time on uncyc, isn't there a special environment here on uncyc. to implement such new features before you deploy it live ? -- Vosnul 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what your personal js is supposed to be for when doing such things, as things should be discussed and tested before being added sitewide. I'm not a fan of testing things using sitewide files when exactly the effect could be achieved in the personal ones, and then moved once working.

Perhaps a javascipt sandbox could be used, and if people wanted to see javascipt in development, they could choose to see and/or test those things by including it, and people that don't care are spared the (often broken) experimental stuff.

And olipro, you can hardly add something like that to the site undiscussed and then forbid anyone else to change it. That's why when it comes to stuff that affects the whole site, you should have the discussion first, so it goes idea -> discuss -> test -> add, rather than idea -> add -> fix -> discussion. And so here comes the vote. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:14, 29 May 2007

And Spang, you can hardly call that a justification to start fucking around with it yourself since all you're doing is putting your own personal spin on what I've created... I'm not necessarily objecting to it being done, but I'll see changes being made as a result of feedback from this initial stage rather than your whimsies... or do we need to drag the Vogonopedia incident back up again... really, it feels very much like you deliberately try to coerce these discussions to expose anything not conducive to your way of thinking as crimethink. shall I make doubleplusgoodrethink fullwise? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Testing Plans

I'm going to dick around with it some more so that you can choose how it displays... there's really no point holding the vote below if people can't actually see what they want in action; so firstly, make a bullet-pointed below this comment of what you think. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on how this feature should work, if at all

As it is now

That is, hiding the page content until a decision is made on whether to show the flash or not. Note that there's no way of knowing what the flash is/does until after you click "yes".

Would you like a panic button? a panic button can be done... -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• For This works fine for now. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 04:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Use different method

For example, showing a placeholder with an option to activate, and maybe show the source too.

• For - The page hiding thing is very annoying. However, if we could do this without hiding the page, and give the option to go to the source instead, this could be a useful feature. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• For per Cs. Most outsiders' tolerance for boredom is not going to stretch to having to make a decision before viewing an article. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• For, a universal "I want to view Flash" tag, for those that want it. And a universal "I'm a girly girl and I'm scared of things that move suddenly" tag for those that don't. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• For flash hiding ( or rather not loading at all in the first place, since flash can be constructed to kill browsers ). Not for hiding page or disrupting layout of article when not showing flash. For easy allow anytime option. Since making flash scripts that kills browsers is a trivial feat to accomplish, lets make one that nukes a browser based on a IP list ! . Um . --Vosnul 08:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not hidden... it fully doesn't load till you say Yes. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove it entirely

Remove the feature entirely, and not be able to embed flash on the wiki. Link to it instead.

• For removing. I think it offers too much annoyingness and abusability over not enough actual use. I just can't see there being any situations where adding someone's flash thing to a page would do any more good than linking to it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:14, 29 May 2007
• Remove: I agree with Spang's opinion on a complete lack of benefit combined with strong potential for abuse as a result of allowing Flash. Furthermore, allowing Flash detracts from the communal wiki nature of Uncyclopedia as it provides single large chunks content that cannot be edited, modified or improved by anyone but the creator. Let's leave the Flash for the hundreds of other Flash animation sites on the Internet. --Sir gwax (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Flash is Evil. Fact.

In the above discussions there are a number of comments about security and "killing browsers" which I'd like to address, even if only briefly. Flash can be constructed to do many, many nasty things. However....the security issues that most people regularly cite were resolved at the time of Flash Player 8 (around mid 2005) with a "fix" for people still using Flash Player 7.

No software is ever going to be 100% immune to vulnerabilities or worse, but lets be aware of all the facts before making arbitrary statements. Also, are going to have the same discussion on the use of javascript? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) No software is ever going to be 100% immune to vulnerabilities or worse, but lets be aware of all the facts before making arbitrary statements. Also, are going to have the same discussion on the use of javascript? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I wasn't really talking about security in the sense that privacy or data are concerned, just the Browser DOS options which still exist within Flash CS3, or actionscript 3. like calling external data from a remote site with cross-domain.xml or via bluntly expecting a data header within loops whilst not returning any data with lock up any flash run-time and consequently lag/hang the browser process. But lets assume that that is no problem, and why should it be ?. Badly designed flash and poorly written actionscript will still cause the occasional discomfort on some slow systems. I think the question should be  : Does anybody care ? , and if somebody does how do you solve this -- Vosnul 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem was solved years ago. It's called flashblock. Horray! Now I only look at the flash movies that I actually think will be worth looking at. Which means none of them, for the most part. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 05/30 00:23