Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Ryan]

Yeah, I received dozens of copies of the message, what's wrong?


On 4/9/05 12:23 AM, "Gizax Studios" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> what happened? I've received more responses like this
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; "IMB Recipient 1"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Patrick Lauke wrote:
>> 
>>> In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
>>> requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
>> A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having
>> to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard
>> to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a
>> browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is
>> required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you
>> mind explaining?
>> 
>>> Older screenreaders
>>> can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
>>> fallback mechanisms.
>> Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are
>> pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring
>> more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.
>> 
>>> However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
>>> flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
>>> with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
>>> sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
>>> 
>>> I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash
>>> Accessibility
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
>>> and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
>>> (just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's
>>> not
>>> an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
>>> are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
>>> context).
>>> 
>>> 
>> These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a
>> constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility
>> requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there
>> who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 
> 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
***

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Ryan]

Yeah, I received dozens of copies of the message, what's wrong?


On 4/9/05 12:23 AM, "Gizax Studios" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> what happened? I've received more responses like this
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; "IMB Recipient 1"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Patrick Lauke wrote:
>> 
>>> In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
>>> requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
>> A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having
>> to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard
>> to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a
>> browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is
>> required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you
>> mind explaining?
>> 
>>> Older screenreaders
>>> can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
>>> fallback mechanisms.
>> Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are
>> pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring
>> more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.
>> 
>>> However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
>>> flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
>>> with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
>>> sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
>>> 
>>> I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash
>>> Accessibility
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
>>> and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
>>> (just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's
>>> not
>>> an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
>>> are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
>>> context).
>>> 
>>> 
>> These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a
>> constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility
>> requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there
>> who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 
> 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
***

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty - THREAD CLOSED

[russ - maxdesign]

Apologies all.
The mail server has been rebooted, lets see how we go.
Thanks for your patience
Russ


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Rick Faaberg]

On 4/9/05 1:01 AM "Absalom Media" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:

> I'm still only recieving one copy of everyone else's post on the list
> apart from scott.

You might as well set a trash/junk mail rule. That's what I've done.

HTH

Rick Faaberg

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Absalom Media]

Ryan wrote:
> I don't think it's him, because I only sent one copy of my previous message
> and I just received two copies with the rest of the stuff from the list, it
> may be a technical diffidulty with the list.

I'm still only recieving one copy of everyone else's post on the list
apart from scott.

Thanks

Lawrence

-- 
Lawrence Meckan

Absalom Media
Mob: (04) 1047 9633
ABN: 49 286 495 792
http://www.absalom.biz
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[James Bennett]

On Apr 9, 2005 4:39 AM, Absalom Media <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, scott, I'm being spammed to death with your post in this thread
> endlessly repeating in the WSG list.

The first of the junk copies had an address 'IMB Recipient 1
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' listed as a recipient in
addition to the list. And it looks like a couple people did 'Reply
All' and sent to that address as well; now I'm getting dozens of
copies of those messages, including yours.

I've double- and triple-checked to make sure I'm not sending this
message to that address or CCing or BCCing it, so this should be a
useful test of whether that's the culprit.

-- 
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
  -- George Carlin
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[John Allsopp]

I imagine something has got in a loop.
I know Peter F is busy tonight, and I'm not going to call him to ruin 
his night off, I will call Russ.

In the meantime, if everyone can be a little patient while the problem 
is solved, that will be best.

John
On 09/04/2005, at 6:36 PM, Ryan wrote:
Yeah, I received dozens of copies of the message, what's wrong?
On 4/9/05 12:23 AM, "Gizax Studios" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message -
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty


Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, 
would you
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide 
accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 
2 are
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works 
correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.

I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as 
it's
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations 
that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a 
Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out 
there
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

John Allsopp
style master :: css edi

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Ryan]

I don't think it's him, because I only sent one copy of my previous message
and I just received two copies with the rest of the stuff from the list, it
may be a technical diffidulty with the list.


On 4/9/05 12:41 AM, "Absalom Media" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Please, scott, I'm being spammed to death with your post in this thread
> endlessly repeating in the WSG list.
> 
> Can you hold off the barbarian hordes for a while ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Lawrence Meckan


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Absalom Media]

Please, scott, I'm being spammed to death with your post in this thread
endlessly repeating in the WSG list.

Can you hold off the barbarian hordes for a while ?

Thanks

Lawrence Meckan
-- 
Lawrence Meckan

Absalom Media
Mob: (04) 1047 9633
ABN: 49 286 495 792
http://www.absalom.biz
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Absalom Media]

Please, scott, I'm being spammed to death with your post in this thread
endlessly repeating in the WSG list.

Can you hold off the barbarian hordes for a while ?

Thanks

Lawrence Meckan
-- 
Lawrence Meckan

Absalom Media
Mob: (04) 1047 9633
ABN: 49 286 495 792
http://www.absalom.biz
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Ryan]

Yeah, I received dozens of copies of the message, what's wrong?


On 4/9/05 12:23 AM, "Gizax Studios" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> what happened? I've received more responses like this
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; "IMB Recipient 1"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Patrick Lauke wrote:
>> 
>>> In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
>>> requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
>> A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having
>> to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard
>> to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a
>> browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is
>> required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you
>> mind explaining?
>> 
>>> Older screenreaders
>>> can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
>>> fallback mechanisms.
>> Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are
>> pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring
>> more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.
>> 
>>> However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
>>> flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
>>> with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
>>> sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
>>> 
>>> I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash
>>> Accessibility
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
>>> and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
>>> (just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's
>>> not
>>> an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
>>> are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
>>> context).
>>> 
>>> 
>> These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a
>> constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility
>> requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there
>> who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 
> 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
***

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] UNSUBSCRIBE PLEASE

[Rick Faaberg]

On 4/9/05 1:19 AM "Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:

> Please unsubscribe me.

I think you need to login here to unsubscribe:



HTH

Rick Faaberg

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] UNSUBSCRIBE PLEASE

[Aaron]

Please unsubscribe me.

Thanks



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of scott parsons
Sent: Saturday, 9 April 2005 5:32 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org; IMB Recipient 1
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty




Patrick Lauke wrote:

>In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
>requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
>
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would
you mind explaining?

>Older screenreaders
>can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
>fallback mechanisms.
>
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html,
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

>However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
>flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
>with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
>sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
>
>I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
>http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
>and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
>http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
>(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
>an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
>are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
>context).
>
>
>
These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Rick Faaberg]

On 4/9/05 1:01 AM "Absalom Media" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:

> I'm still only recieving one copy of everyone else's post on the list
> apart from scott.

You might as well set a trash/junk mail rule. That's what I've done.

HTH

Rick Faaberg

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Absalom Media]

Ryan wrote:
> I don't think it's him, because I only sent one copy of my previous message
> and I just received two copies with the rest of the stuff from the list, it
> may be a technical diffidulty with the list.

I'm still only recieving one copy of everyone else's post on the list
apart from scott.

Thanks

Lawrence

-- 
Lawrence Meckan

Absalom Media
Mob: (04) 1047 9633
ABN: 49 286 495 792
http://www.absalom.biz
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Gizax Studios]

what happened? I've received more responses like this
- Original Message - 
From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "IMB Recipient 1" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty



Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having 
to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard 
to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a 
browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is 
required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you 
mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms.
Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are 
pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring 
more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash 
Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's 
not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).


These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Ryan]

I don't think it's him, because I only sent one copy of my previous message
and I just received two copies with the rest of the stuff from the list, it
may be a technical diffidulty with the list.


On 4/9/05 12:41 AM, "Absalom Media" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Please, scott, I'm being spammed to death with your post in this thread
> endlessly repeating in the WSG list.
> 
> Can you hold off the barbarian hordes for a while ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Lawrence Meckan


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Absalom Media]

Please, scott, I'm being spammed to death with your post in this thread
endlessly repeating in the WSG list.

Can you hold off the barbarian hordes for a while ?

Thanks

Lawrence Meckan
-- 
Lawrence Meckan

Absalom Media
Mob: (04) 1047 9633
ABN: 49 286 495 792
http://www.absalom.biz
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[scott parsons]

Patrick Lauke wrote:
In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology. 

A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between 
having to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is 
very hard to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that 
is a browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash 
is required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would 
you mind explaining?

Older screenreaders
can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
fallback mechanisms. 

Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 
are pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, 
ignoring more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.

However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash Accessibility
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
(just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's not
an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
context).
 

These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a 
constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility 
requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there 
who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty

[Ryan]

Yeah, I received dozens of copies of the message, what's wrong?


On 4/9/05 12:23 AM, "Gizax Studios" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> what happened? I've received more responses like this
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "scott parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; "IMB Recipient 1"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Patrick Lauke wrote:
>> 
>>> In and of itself, flash will never be accessible to everybody, as it
>>> requires a plugin; it's not a web native technology.
>> A plugin huh?, I've always wondered what the difference was between having
>> to have the flash plugin and having to have a web browser? it is very hard
>> to see any html css website without the correct plugin (that is a
>> browser), so why does it suddenly become so much worse when flash is
>> required? Sorry but I have just never understood this argument, would you
>> mind explaining?
>> 
>>> Older screenreaders
>>> can't access its content at all. So, it's important to provide accessible
>>> fallback mechanisms.
>> Yeah but my fallback positions for older browsers, like say netscape 2 are
>> pretty hazy, theoretically they could understand the plain html, ignoring
>> more modern tags but I haven't really tested it recently.
>> 
>>> However, for the percentage of users that *can* use
>>> flash (have the plugin, have assistive technology that works correctly
>>> with it, etc), you should then ensure that the flash itself follows
>>> sensible, accessibility-related norms and conventions.
>>> 
>>> I'd suggest having a look at Bob Regan's recent post on Flash
>>> Accessibility
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007003.cfm
>>> and the interesting WCAG 1.0 Techniques for Flash
>>> http://www.markme.com/accessibility/archives/007344.cfm
>>> (just to clarify: WCAG itself does not necessarily cover Flash, as it's
>>> not
>>> an official W3C technology...so this document makes recommendations that
>>> are similar / in sympathy with what WCAG tries to achieve, but in a Flash
>>> context).
>>> 
>>> 
>> These links are really useful as I work in advertising and it is a
>> constant battle to get any kind of adherence to accessibility
>> requirements. But also because there are many flash designers out there
>> who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **
>> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>> 
>> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>> **
>> 
>> 
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 
> 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**