When it comes to Flash, I think we make a mistake in thinking of it as a web format. It isn't. It's an animation format, which can be used in all kinds of ways -- freestanding applications, kiosks, mobile phones and yes, web pages.
So, is the site using Flash for things like navigation, which are essential? Or does the site feature *content* which uses Flash, like a game, or just plain indefinable "art"? If it uses Flash for navigation, that's inaccessible. If it uses Flash for video and doesn't provide some kind of transcript or description, that's inaccessible. But if a web site wins an award, and its *content* is nothing but Flash, to me, it's winning an award for animation. It's no different from a website winning an award for its embedded Java applet -- it's not really our concern on this list. If we're concerned about web standards, we can look at that site and say "OK, its primary content is in a form which is not available to all browsers/platforms, its primary content is not accessible to blind users, but that's fair enough". And then what we can judge them on is how they have dealt with visitors to their site who can't take advantage of its primary content. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
