As this response was swallowed by the list going down, allow me to re-post.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [WSG] flash and accessabilty Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 14:04:27 +0100 From: Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]
scott parsons wrote:
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?
Web browsers use standard content, namely (X)HTML/CSS/etc - native web formats, defined and ratified by the W3C. Flash is a proprietary format. Flash content is not sent out "in the clear" over the web, and requires a plugin to run...which effectively turns any flash into a black box running on top of a standard web page. Not everybody can access flash (not because they don't have the plugin, but because they just can't use its content), but everybody can use native web formats.
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.
I'm not talking about Netscape 2. I'm talking about users who have disabled flash because their particular assistive technology (screenreader, for instance) cannot process flash content. Or users which access the web via something like Lynx, a text-based browser which does not support flash at all.
there are many flash designers out there who would like to learn but haven't found good resources.
But just to reiterate: even if you follow the recommended practices in Bob's document, you still need to provide an (X)HTML based fallback/alternative. It's one of the core tenets of WCAG
" Use W3C technologies (according to specification) and follow accessibility guidelines. Where it is not possible to use a W3C technology, or doing so results in material that does not transform gracefully, provide an alternative version of the content that is accessible."
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-use-w3c
-- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ re�dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
