Template talk:Adobe Flash

Categorization

Undue weight seems to be given to Haxe, separated into a dedicated link group. I did not know how else to categorize the Haxe-related links since they are all inter-related (Haxe, OpenFL, etc) and are a confusing bunch usually used with each other.

I would appreciate guidance on improving the organization structure of the template, to reduce the undue weight given to Haxe while keeping Haxe-related technologies in one group.

-- Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wonderfl

Well, the problem stems from your own weird categorization. In your strange system, every category of software except viewer, is a development tool, yet you have a distinct development tool too. (Compilers, libraries, debuggers, profilers and even in this case server tools are only and only useful to a developer.) Haxe is programming language. Furthermore, it does not compile Flash into anything; it authors Flash files among other things. Make it a sublink of OpenFL and put it in authoring tools.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call my categorization whatever you want, but keep Haxe and OpenFL outside the artist-only category of "authoring tools". Haxe and OpenFL target flash player, and as such are compilers of sorts, as in, they compile Haxe code to Flash movies, and therefore I see no reason why they cannot be under "compilers". -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Why do you think "authoring tools" are artist only? Neither the words "authoring" nor "tool" has anything to do with "artists". "To author" means "to create or to originate; to write; to design for". Example: optical disc authoring. In addition, even when you have strong evidence to the contrary, putting them into "Compilers" section is questionable. Items in compilers section take "Flash" as input while for Haxe and OpenFL, Flash is the output.

If you don't like the words "authoring" or "compilers", I am ready to negotiate for alternatives. We can even call a WP:3O for a opinion from outside. You can also tell me with which of the dispute resolution methods you are most comfortable and we can proceed to that as our plan B. I think because you've been here since 2008, you have more experience with them than I do.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Actually, according to Collins English Dictionary, "authoring" means "(computing) the creation of documents, esp multimedia documents". That's exactly down our avenue. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not specific about the wording, or layout, and not interested in arguing or proving a point, or having a 3rd opinion because I consider your opinion biased, or anything. I have a simple vision for the template, and would like your help in attempting to implement it.

Artist tools : You can see Flash Pro, Swish, Flash Catalyst, and all the other animation tools are clearly for artists. Lets say Amish is an artist, and he has entered WP via the Swish page, he can then see similar tools at his level. If he clicked on CrossBridge for example, he may be thoroughly confused and may leave.
Developer tools : Flash Builder, FD, FDT, Haxe, Swfmill, Flex SDK, CrossBridge, and so on may only be used by developers or "deselopers" (designers + developers). Lets Danny is a dev, and he enters WP via Flash Builder, it would be nice for him to be introduced to the other cool ways of building apps with flash (Haxe, Flex SDK, CrossBridge, Scout) without being distracted with animation tools.

If you look on the Adobe Flash article, you'll see "authoring tools" exclusively refer to animation tools like Flash Pro and Swish. I added the parts about FD, and Flash Builder, and so on, attempting to add some developer related info in there. Since then I have assumed "authoring tools" mean artist-only tools. If not, then please find a better name for it, as I would really like to separate these two categories of tools. And to respond to your comment "it is senseless to put into compilers what cannot compile Flash files", please note that Haxe and OpenFL can both compile SWF files, and I don't see why they are not Flash compilers.

Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt and categorizing it to help separate artist/dev tools. Now you may call it zany or wierd or whatever, but try to improve it instead of reverting it outright. Regards. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

You seem to have nailed it this time. I love this new layout.

If you want more on terminology, the artist guys are called "web designers" or just "designers", even though their work is web-related or strictly art. The coding guys are called "web developers" or just "developers", even though their work might not be web-related or strictly coding. Both designers and developers have to know a little bit about the work of the other.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm glad it worked out. All's well that ends well, I guess! Merry Christmas! Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]