Comments on: Microsoft, ActiveX and noscript http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/ Hypertext rulez™ Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:01:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Karl Rudd http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2338 Karl Rudd Tue, 23 May 2006 05:26:40 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2338 There's a much simpler way. No messing round creating hundreds of seperate Javascript files or relying soley on Javascript to "write" out tags. This is basically a copy paste of what I posted on <a href="http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/05/flash-interaction-disabled-in-internet-explorer/">Robert Nyman's blog</a>. At the moment I've got something like this at the top of the pages containing Flash or other 'objects'. <code><!--[if IE]> <script defer="defer" src="iefixes.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <![endif]--></code> And in 'iefixes.js': <code>var objects = document.getElementsByTagName('object'); for (var i = 0; i < objects.length; i++) { objects[i].outerHTML = objects[i].outerHTML; };</code> The two key points are the conditional comment (so it's IE only) and the "defer" attribute (so it runs directly after the body is loaded). It's not perfect but it works well, and means I don't have to change all object tags. It also means that if the user doesn't have Javascript they can still access the Flash. There’s a much simpler way. No messing round creating hundreds of seperate Javascript files or relying soley on Javascript to “write” out tags.

This is basically a copy paste of what I posted on Robert Nyman’s blog.

At the moment I’ve got something like this at the top of the pages containing Flash or other ‘objects’.

<!--[if IE]>
<script defer=”defer” src=”iefixes.js” type=”text/javascript”></script>
<![endif]–>

And in ‘iefixes.js’:
var objects = document.getElementsByTagName('object');
for (var i = 0; i < objects.length; i++) {
objects[i].outerHTML = objects[i].outerHTML;
};

The two key points are the conditional comment (so it’s IE only) and the “defer” attribute (so it runs directly after the body is loaded).

It’s not perfect but it works well, and means I don’t have to change all object tags.

It also means that if the user doesn’t have Javascript they can still access the Flash.

]]> By: marko http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2321 marko Fri, 19 May 2006 08:00:08 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2321 Yes, the SWFObject is great if you don't have several Flash files plus loads of other JavaScript trickery around the page. Yes, the SWFObject is great if you don’t have several Flash files plus loads of other JavaScript trickery around the page.

]]> By: DC http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2320 DC Thu, 18 May 2006 18:30:50 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2320 I have heard SWF Object to be the most ideal solution, I just use a 5 line javascript i wrote that manually clicks on any object as it loads in the page, which works for all activex objects etc, especialy usefull if you have many flash objects on a page. (For example, an mp3 shopping site that has 50 preview buttons on one page, even though dynamically gen'd and swf object could be called for each one, its much more efficient). And I thought how SWF Object worked coudln't cause a big slowdown, but just now on a client's site, It more then quadroupled the load time, it litteraly takes 30 seconds after the page is done loading for the flash to appear. Maybe it's something specific for ceritant settings or flash files, but SWFObject definetly slower in this specific example (but has not been in others?). I have heard SWF Object to be the most ideal solution, I just use a 5 line javascript i wrote that manually clicks on any object as it loads in the page, which works for all activex objects etc, especialy usefull if you have many flash objects on a page. (For example, an mp3 shopping site that has 50 preview buttons on one page, even though dynamically gen’d and swf object could be called for each one, its much more efficient).

And I thought how SWF Object worked coudln’t cause a big slowdown, but just now on a client’s site, It more then quadroupled the load time, it litteraly takes 30 seconds after the page is done loading for the flash to appear. Maybe it’s something specific for ceritant settings or flash files, but SWFObject definetly slower in this specific example (but has not been in others?).

]]> By: nivid http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2319 nivid Thu, 18 May 2006 14:54:06 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2319 very nifty..thanks for sharing it.. very nifty..thanks for sharing it..

]]> By: marko http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2272 marko Thu, 11 May 2006 07:59:38 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2272 Todd, you’re right, the <code>wmode="transparent"</code> increases CPU usage, but it’s sometimes necessary for various reasons. Nevertheless, the brute <code>innerHTML</code> method works best in this case. Todd, you’re right, the wmode="transparent" increases CPU usage, but it’s sometimes necessary for various reasons. Nevertheless, the brute innerHTML method works best in this case.

]]> By: Todd Dominey http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2271 Todd Dominey Wed, 10 May 2006 21:55:20 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2271 I've heard of CPU issues when SWFs are set with a transparent WMODE. Perhaps that could be the problem. I’ve heard of CPU issues when SWFs are set with a transparent WMODE. Perhaps that could be the problem.

]]> By: Geoff http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2270 Geoff Wed, 10 May 2006 13:09:31 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2270 <em>SWFObject pushes P4 2.8 HT CPU to 100% in Firefox when cloud rendering starts at Hellgate: London.</em> Are you sure? I've been using SWFObject for almost a year and a half and never had it affect the performance of a swf file. It just writes the html to the page as it loads and then that's it, it shouldn't cause any adverse performance. SWFObject pushes P4 2.8 HT CPU to 100% in Firefox when cloud rendering starts at Hellgate: London.

Are you sure? I’ve been using SWFObject for almost a year and a half and never had it affect the performance of a swf file. It just writes the html to the page as it loads and then that’s it, it shouldn’t cause any adverse performance.

]]> By: Michael Thompson http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2269 Michael Thompson Wed, 10 May 2006 12:14:37 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2269 I agree with those above on the use of SWFObject: (http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/) The beauty of it is that is doesn't rely on noscript at all -- it replaces a DIVs content using well-written Javascript. It keeps your markup extremely clean (a JS include and a few lines where you want the Flash to appear), and works in just about every browser. And where it doesn't work, you're left with a div containing your alternate content. Nice work, though. And while SWFObject might be a teeny bit slower, it's also far more flexible and time-tested at v1.4. I agree with those above on the use of SWFObject:
(http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/)

The beauty of it is that is doesn’t rely on noscript at all — it replaces a DIVs content using well-written Javascript.

It keeps your markup extremely clean (a JS include and a few lines where you want the Flash to appear), and works in just about every browser. And where it doesn’t work, you’re left with a div containing your alternate content.

Nice work, though. And while SWFObject might be a teeny bit slower, it’s also far more flexible and time-tested at v1.4.

]]> By: marko http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2267 marko Wed, 10 May 2006 08:33:54 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2267 SWFObject pushes P4 2.8 HT CPU to 100% in Firefox when cloud rendering starts at <a href="http://hellgatelondon.com/">Hellgate: London</a>. We integrated a kind of benchmark into .SWF file itself, but it wasn’t of any help. Plus, we have tons of other JavaScript functions on the site, which is also making things more processor intensive. SWFObject pushes P4 2.8 HT CPU to 100% in Firefox when cloud rendering starts at Hellgate: London.

We integrated a kind of benchmark into .SWF file itself, but it wasn’t of any help. Plus, we have tons of other JavaScript functions on the site, which is also making things more processor intensive.

]]> By: Darren Kopp http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2248 Darren Kopp Tue, 09 May 2006 20:34:46 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2248 we use SWFObject at work and it seems to work just fine, as well as it loads quite quickly. we use SWFObject at work and it seems to work just fine, as well as it loads quite quickly.

]]> By: marko http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2247 marko Tue, 09 May 2006 19:05:38 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2247 John, we tried with the SWFObject, but the site was awfully slow, especially on FF/Mac. John, we tried with the SWFObject, but the site was awfully slow, especially on FF/Mac.

]]> By: John http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2246 John Tue, 09 May 2006 17:29:54 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2246 Did you try using the <a href="http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/">SWFObject</a> method of embedding Flash? I've found that to be the easiest and most effective way to embed Flash in a webpage, plus it has the advantage of detecting the version of Flash installed on a user's machine. If you did try out SWFObject, I'm curious why you chose this solution in the end. Did you try using the SWFObject method of embedding Flash? I’ve found that to be the easiest and most effective way to embed Flash in a webpage, plus it has the advantage of detecting the version of Flash installed on a user’s machine. If you did try out SWFObject, I’m curious why you chose this solution in the end.

]]> By: Nathan Logan http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2245 Nathan Logan Tue, 09 May 2006 17:15:57 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2245 We'll be using this at work very soon. Thanks a lot for sharing it. We’ll be using this at work very soon.

Thanks a lot for sharing it.

]]> By: cody lindley http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2244 cody lindley Tue, 09 May 2006 15:06:53 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2244 Very helpful, thanks. Very helpful, thanks.

]]> By: Chris Wible http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2243 Chris Wible Mon, 08 May 2006 20:50:11 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2243 Ugh! I'm glad I'm getting away from Flash... for a while I was feeling like I might be missing something. And, here it is - another headache. I can do without that! ;) Just so you know - your live preview script is running r e a l l y s l o w today. Not griping - just letting you know. Ugh! I’m glad I’m getting away from Flash… for a while I was feeling like I might be missing something. And, here it is - another headache. I can do without that! ;)

Just so you know - your live preview script is running r e a l l y s l o w today. Not griping - just letting you know.

]]> By: Fredrik Wärnsberg http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2242 Fredrik Wärnsberg Mon, 08 May 2006 19:59:26 +0000 http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2006/05/08/microsoft-activex-and-noscript/#comment-2242 This just might be the fall for common flash-usage! This just might be the fall for common flash-usage!

]]>