thanks for the reply. no, the problem is that LYNX displays absolutely NOTHING. I've checked the docs, deleted my work, started it again...same outcome.
Unfortunately, it transpires that there is a bug in Lynx whereby it will stop processing anything between <object> and </object> tags....so it totally ignores the alternate content you are supplying it. This is widely regarded to be a fault with Lynx not following recomendations, so yes, SWFObject WOULD appear to be working correctly (according to spec) even though this still leaves some users with no content. I'm going to check it in OTHER text-based browsers, if it works OK i can presume the content is still accessible, just not to Lynx users.....i'll have to decide if thats acceptible or not. I was wondering if anyone has already been down this road? On Jan 26, 11:02 pm, Aran Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim > > If the browser is text based, then it will not execute the javascript which > swaps the alternate content div text to a Flash file. Lynx etc should be > displaying whatever the alternate content div was defined with initially on > the page. Is this not the case for you? > > You might want to (re)read the documentation in regards to how the > progressive mark-up is handled. > > Cheers, > Aran > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:55 AM, JimP <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have been looking into using SWFobject for our (cs3 designed) flash > > movies, both for the usual SEO reasons AND to enhance the site's > > accessibility for disabled users. > > I have implemented it on a test site and noticed afterwards that > > SWFObject doesn't render ANYTHING out to text-based browsers such as > > lynx. > > Because there is no EMBED code, we cant use the NOEMBED....has anyone > > got any thoughts on how to get content out for text-based readers? > > Presumably this too would help SEO wise so I'm a little conflicted as > > to the best way to do things. > > The old style adobe-supplied script at least renders out the NOEMBED > > tag information if you supply it. > > How about a NOSCRIPT tag containing the accessible content? Would that > > be a good route to go down? Or am i going to compromise SEO rankings > > then because they will index the same content from both the SWFObject > > code AND the NOSCRIPT code? > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "SWFObject" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<swfobject%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SWFObject" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en.
