Could Flash files become and acceptable attachment?

Any chance that flash files (.swf) could be added as an acceptable extension for uploads. Everything else could remain the same (dimension and file size), but it would be useful to have it as an option.

1) Photos in flash files are harder to copy out than just putting up an image file, protecting peoples work somewhat.
2) It would allow the inclusion of basic image viewers where the first photo is included in the post, and the others are sourced from a remote location and accessed using buttons on the viewer. Except it would be a background function, not apparent to anyone looking at the file.
3) This would also mean multi image posts are less of a threat to modem users as only the first image in a set is actually loaded. Others only load on demand.
4) This would also mean less storage and bandwidth used be PotN.
5) Lastly, while Macromedia flash is paid for software there are freeware flash editors out there (such as in OpenOffice) that make this accessible to anyone.

Does that sound good, or is there some other major issue I'm missing here.

Absolutely reasonable. It will lock out those that do not want/can have Flash player installed (that is a real minority anyway) but you've surely got a point.

Hopefully the don't wants would be a very minor thing as its free and not spyware or anything.

There may well be some can'ts though if there are folks on odd operating systems, or on a system were they have limited access rights. I'm sure neither of them will mind.

Citizensmith wrote:
I'm sure neither of them will mind.

Or in any case, since its a real minority, who cares ?

Anyone had a chance to make a decision on this?

I will always seek for better ways of doing things, as long as reasons are valid. What you have with Flash is a nice format, but does not prevent image stealing or reduce bandwith (JPEG's do not pack better with Flash).

But I am open-minded

I have enabled now .swf extension with MIME type "application/x-shockwave-flash" & 100KB limit for attachments, please try it out and demo something useful with it in order to keep it there.

Please post your test post address here.

Thanks for adding that. I'll post an example in the next couple of days. I'd got one ready prepared but I'm not near the computer its on until wednesday.

My though about the saving bandwidth thing wasn't a reflection on file compression but more that this could be another way to get people to host photos on other servers. The little example thing I put together was a flash app with a single image in it. When a user pressed the forward button to move to the next image it actually pulled it off my web page. Sure that is no different to people just linking to their web page but this just makes it look like its all coming from PotN.

As for the image stealing thing that just may be a mistaken assumption on my part. Someone could still screen capture, but right clicking to save will get them a hard to edit swf file rather than a jpg. Maybe I've just not tried hard enough to open other peoples swf files.

Anyway, thanks again for this and all you efforts here.

Here is a quick demo. The first file (70.6KB) points to a second (310KB) on a separate web space. The only notable difference should be a small delay the first time you transition. If this works well and you approve it I'll make some templates and put the .fla files up for people to grab so anyone with a flash editor of some kind will be able to put similar stuff together easily.

Here's a link to the second part http://www.notesfromth​erivercity.com/Flash/p​hotoviewer2.swf

Hmm, not working. I get the same results in firefox 1.02 or IE 6.0. It isn't trying to resolve the attachment as it does with a .jpg, and when you click on the link it provides you get a page of hex.

Now it works.

Great, thanks.

Is the reason the flash files appear as attachments rather than inline like jpgs a simple fix or is it just a limitation of using that format in this forum software?

I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to stop browsers scaling the flash files up to fit. It makes the image look horribly pixelated. On the fly resizing from 800 pixel width to whatever screen size people are using will be kind of ugly. I'd really like to make it stay at the size I originally set.

I would strongly argue against showing the flash as inline image. Flash can contain sound right? I would hate to open a thread here that played music I wasn't prepared for.

Ohh and the demo. Did You use very low quality photos for that? Because they don't look good on my screen (sorry).

Correct, it can. You may have a point, although it could just be a forum rule not to use it. The same issue could occur if you follow a link to someone's web site though.

If your browser is doing what mine is doing it looks crappy because it is scaling it up to fit your screen. I resized the photo down to an 800 pixel image, so when Firefox/IE decides it really wants it to be a 1280 it gets ugly fast. I'm going to look for a way to tell it not to scale, but it may be a browser issue rather than a flash issue.

Just testin' sommat


<object width="800" height="600">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.note​sfromtherivercity.com/​Flash/photoviewer2.swf​">
<embed src="http://www.notesf​romtherivercity.com/Fl​ash/photoviewer2.swf" width="800" height="600">
</embed>
</object>

And now I notice the "HTML code is off" thing down in the Posting Rules.

Probably a sensible thing so a badly written tag doesn't hose a forum page.