Posted by Chaddy2222 on 10/10/07 06:18

On Oct 10, 5:08 am, Karl Groves <k...@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote:
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@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.

http://www.northleithmill.com/

> 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.
>
I can read the text from the above Flash site with my Screenreader.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

[Back to original message]