This is tending to drift off-topic, but it is a valid part of standards because we're discussing accessibility issues in relation to design and the role of 'image' in design. (So now I feel better :-).
The attitude that says 'visually impaired people don't matter because it isn't for them' may sound insular, but it isn't. It's merely a matter of fact. The evangelists of the 'everything in the world must be accessible to all' camp are striving for the impossible. The logical extension of this extreme attitude is that all art galleries should close down because the totally blind can't see anything in there, and all music should be unavailable because the totally deaf can't hear it, and . . . OK, you get the point. However, I do believe that we must all strive to produce something which can be appreciated by as many folk as possible, including those with accessibility difficulties. So, to take my own case (so I'm not slagging anyone else off) my main business site is primarily flash, and it is totally 'inaccessible in the sense we mean here. [ It's the link in the signature below] So, I've provided an html version too (same 'factual content', different way of going about it - as indeed applies to the Foster&Partners site also). My site may not be perfect, but Hey - that's why I'm here : to learn how to make it as near perfect as I'm capable of doing, with help from you guys. So, the point is, to say that 'Flash is awful because it's not accessible' and all that stuff is to completely miss the point - it isn't for folk with disabilities - the html option is. Surely? Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
