I don't want to dig too deeply into these three articles on Flash here in the blog because the timing is perfect for me to discuss them in relation to my presentation and my own experience with Flash. But I did want to say that Nielsen's article especially struck me because I still think of the internet in general as a new thing, and just like people are afraid of e-books as a new and substandard replacement for paper books, Nielsen seemed to be talking about Flash as a new and substandard replacement for good old tried-and-true HTML pages. The way he spoke of traditional HTML pages surprised me. He acted as though HTML had been around for centuries and if it ain't broke, why fix it? It's interesting to me to see this resistance and wish to adhere to something which may seem traditional and safe, but is itself a new invention. And it is also interesting to see that the "world" seems to have disagreed with Nielsen. In just seven short years, Flash has gone from "fluff" to indistry standard for the majority of people wishing to create serious websites. If it isn't itself a Flash site, guaranteed over 50% of the decent sites we all go to contain Flash elements. Apple.com uses Flash and quicktime. So does Microsoft.com. Adobe purchased Flash. Almost all commercial and corporate websites are flash. (Glance at Louisvuitton.com). It is the way of the future. --Big Brother