Proof, if needed, that using Flash is bad news
Last week I was on site with a client who wants a website redesigning. They were showing me how it currently works and wanted to take me to their members area. "Click the flashing yellow dot" they told me, which I did, only for nothing to happen. "You have to click it twice", they told me, "it's broken!".
At first I thought nothing of this as I knew one of the first things I'd be doing is getting rid of the Flash link/button in question anyway (there must be better ways to draw somebody's attention to a link than making it a throbbing orb). Later on I realised what the problem actually was and that it could well affect other sites too.
You might have heard in the press about the Microsoft vs Eolas lawsuit. The outcome of which is that users of IE can't directly interact with ActiveX objects loaded via APPLET, EMBED or OBJECT elements until they first click them to activate the UI. This includes Flash in most cases.
So, the Flash button wasn't broken, as such. It just needed clicking before it could accept focus. Obviously it then needed clicking again before any onclick event fired.
If you use Flash on any of your sites for navigation you need to know about this and the workaround Microsoft came up with:
To create Web pages that load interactive controls that respond immediately to user input, use Microsoft JScript to load controls from external script files.
Be warned!
Skip to the 
You can subscribe to an individual
I had this exact problem a fortnight ago - was quite a significant task to sort out a couple of "flash heavy" sites.
"throbbing orb"
I am scared to ask what kind of business this is ;)
I've seen this issue with many sites and its absolutely annoying! There's even times, for certain embedded files, where IE prompts (yes an annoying "OK" box) that there is an embedded file on the site and that the user must click "OK" to continue. I haven't read up on the lawsuit but this is harsh punishment even for MS.
jason
This will affect applets within webmail and rich text editors (if you use them) in Domino apps R6 and below.
IBM is loving this and there suggestion is to use another supported Browser (i.e. Firefox) or do not use Active X.
I think it will end up causing more problems for the companies who make plug-ins that work like this (Flash, for instance). With AJAX floating around out there, the last thing Macromedia would want is another reason to NOT use plug-ins when developing web applications.
From the article, the inringement was in the way MS implemented the technology in IE. Mozilla-based browsers weren't mentioned, and are not affected, correct? Therefore, we have yet another reason to use Firefox. Now, if only that were our corporate standard.
err, infringement. Too much cocoa bean in my hot chocolate this morning.
SWFObject {Link} formerly known as FlashObject, is the easiest way to embed flash in such a way that it will still work with this change to IE. It's also generally just a nicer way of embedding Flash and less effort than adding those embed/object tags directly.
Of course it won't work if the user doesn't have Javascript, but if they're one of those paranoid nuts then it's doubtful they allow Flash anyway :)
Meant to comment yesterday that Documentum, a document repository java based application, uses active-x controls that now have this same "broken" appearance. I think they are retooling a bit but there are probably lots of instances like this out there... knowing what we know, and possible ways around the problems, the enterprising among us might make some nice contracts letting people know their applications may need fixing. :-)
People who litter their sites with Flash and ActiveX nonsense tend also to be those who have abandonned W3C standards, build only for IE (rather than a 'user agent') and have never read anything by Jakob Nielsen on good HCI design. They get what they deserve (i.e. falling visitor numbers and maintenance headaches).
Flashing buttons that have to be clicked twice? Another example of how websites have become the personal playground of ill-disciplined, ego-centric web designers rather than the customer-focussed interface they are supposed to be.
(Just wait and see the flames I get for that one, tee hee ;-)