1. Ac_runactivecontent.js Download Free

Why SWFObject is better than AC_RunActiveContent.js for flash embedding

Does, I finally decided just to go ahead with ACRunActiveContent.js which I used in the first place. I don't seem to be able to find any usefullness using SWF Object. And btw, both static and dynamic method in SWF Object 2.1 triggered the activeX warning in IE 8. If you could fix that, I might consider. Free download page for Project GeAnn's ACRunActiveContent.js.GeAnn is a crowdsourcing-powered Web game for collecting document relevance judgements. Crowdsourcing for academic and industrial purposes often faces issues of quality control and worker motiva. Tean said Other than googling ‘this page requires ACRunActiveContent.js’ I cant help you. I tried before I opened the thread but all I got was stuff to do with adding files to the pageI just want to access the page; I’m not the page’s owner. Ac Run Activecontent Js; Js Auto Form Validator; Ac Runtime.js; Acrun Active Conten.js; Acrunactivecontent.js; Ajax.js Java; Download Ac Runactive Content.js; Js Scape; Acrunactivecontent.js Free For Mac; Ac Run Active Content Js Free; Js to Swf; Java Script.js; Toolspacked.js; Acrunactivecontents.js; Ac Run Active Content Js; Free Js. Hey all - I am using v7 of the Adobe script, and it doesn't work in Safari. Anyone had this issue before? I can paste in all the code here if it helps.

Some advantages of using SWFObject over Macromedia’s AC_RunActiveContent.js approach (that most places don’t talk about):

1. SWFObject degrades gracefully. If flash isn’t detected, the “flashcontent” div element never gets replaced with the flash object script. This being the case, you can use xhtml compliant code that’s far cleaner and more robust than anything Macromedia supports out of the box. Interestingly, Macromedia doesn’t even support alternative content when their implementation is called using the jscript. They allow a <noscript> content area, but in that case you’re limited to only having a replacement <img> instead of full-blown replacement content.
2. SWFObject entails terser code. When using SFWObject, you’re only placing/calling your flash script once instead of multiple times. Notice, for example, that Macromedia requires the flash object to essentially be placed twice, thereby duplicating your work outright. Needless to say, SFWObject’s code implementation is far more elegant and much easier to maintain.
3. SWFObject contains an efficient and robust framework that has extensive functionality built right in. As it stands, Macromedia’s implementation has no (or at least an extremely cryptic) method for doing things like, for example, passing flash argument variables. In fact, a quick glance at Macromedia’s AC_RunActiveContent.js file shows that their rendering mechanism is proprietary to the point of absurdity. Case in point, notice Macromedia’s AC_FL_RunContent() function for generating the <embed> object – if that’s not ad hoc, I don’t know what is. Dirty, cumbersome, and the perfect example of unnecessary overhead that bars anything from being readily transparent or extensible.
4. And, of course, all of the regular advantages.

Some caveats:

1. SWFObject doesn’t work if/when javascript is disabled. I personally consider this a small point, but it’s still a valid shortcoming. Of course, it seems to me that browsers that are running without javascript enabled are likely to be running without flash enabled, either; this is hardly the sort of crowd that most web applications (relying on flash, nonetheless) have to cater to. Incidentally, Macromedia’s approach doesn’t suffer this setback given their use of <noscript>.

EXAMPLE

Anyone familiar with Macromedia’s suggested method for deploying a flash component will find the following typical:

Using SWFObject, one can replace the above using about 1/4 the code:

Ac_runactivecontent.js Download Free