Posted by Karl Groves on 10/09/07 19:08

SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in news:5n1qjdFfo57eU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
>> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
>> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
>> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
>> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
>> example of this too)
>
> You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
> content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.
>
> Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
> supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
> layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
> inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.

Accessible for who?
First, I've yet to see accessible flash.
AT support for Flash is terribly spotty, so the amount of work required to
make accessible Flash is bigger than most Flash developers want to deal
with. On the upside, the ability for Flash to be self voicing is super
cool, as is the ability to do your own captioning and all of that. There's
a lot of other possibilities with Flash (and flex) like providing tab index
and so on. But again, where are the accessible Flash websites? Simply
saying it is possible isn't enough.




--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com

[Back to original message]