> Is added accessibility for people with disabilities such a good thing if it reduces accessibility for the majority?
Well, I think the issue here is that there is no need to reduce accessibility for others. There would have been many other ways to approach this issue from what I see, which would not have made a significant impact on the pages. First, the splash page, which I see as being there to offer access to different languages, rather than just a choice between accessible/non-accessible. Second, why not load *only* the page that is "accessibility enhanced"? I've gone through both and there doesn't appear to be a huge difference. In fact, the only difference I could find was that one has a few accessibility "options", the other one doesn't. It is showing poor Vision to think that only users with disabilities would benefit from those "options". I'm sure there would have been a way to integrate that panel in the design in a way that would be unobtrusive (though as is, it's not really "that bad"). As for providing a choice to text only version, that could also have been a small text link at the top of the page, before the flash finishes loading. So, yeah, making flash pages accessible is difficult, but not impossible. In this case, you get confronted with many choices before your page loads, which seem to make it less usable for you, but the problem here is not one of accessibility, rather, one of how the designer chose to implement the accessibility of the site. My 2 cents :) Nic ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
