To get back to you on the fact that Flash should need different Textfields to give semantic meaning to them.
Well Flash as somewhat differet Textfields in the form of htmlText. At least you have paragraph, list and images. I know it’s not much and the search engines probably don’t give a crap about htmlText, but it’s a start.
If Adobe could improve the htmlText part of Flash and give us more option it would be good in lots of ways (presentation of dynamic data and SEO).
What I like about that is that if you don’t care about SEO you can just go on and use the basic Textfield. But who does’nt care about SEO nowadays.
You’re absolutely right about htmlText and I should probably have mentioned it (I had no idea how little you have time to say in such a long interview). I’m not sure either how useful it is, and I’m sceptical. The HTML it supports is very limited, it’s mostly tags that are purely visual (like b, i and font). There’s nothing stopping you from using any other HTML like h1, h2, etc., but if you do you have to do the styling yourself — in which case the gain is dubious, you could just as well use TextFormat and separate text fields, which usually requires less work. As you say, it’s something, but I don’t think it’s enough, there needs to be more in order for an indexer to be able to make any sense out of a Flash site.
Oh, and you deserve some credit for your SEO experiments. Without them I wouldn’t be so confident in saying that the Adobe/Google Flash indexing collaboration doesn’t seem to be working. Great work, I hope you will continue, and report if things seem to change.
Thes, nice talk about SEO. I just wished youÂ´d talked a bit more on progressive enhancement a site. I think many do not know that this is the way to build site. Start with a very basic page and put layer after layer with more complex ui. The last part is really the Flex application on top of everything for those with the latest Flash plug-in. And yes, i hope they come up with a better way to extract texts in a mote semantic way.