W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Flash vs Traditional Screen shot tutorials

From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:47:08 +1000
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>, "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NBBBJPNFCLNLAADCLFJBGEEDGMAA.gdeering@acslink.net.au>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile 
> The RNIB looked at ways for people to try stuff out when they were  
> reviewing online banking (a few years ago now - I think around 2000). I  
> have seen some sites that, rather than provide either a screenshot or a  
> flash presentation actually provide a version of the interactive 
> part in a  
> sandbox so you can't do anything permanent. This is rarer in software,  
> although in principle it should be easier. Essentially you offer 
> a safety  
> mode, similar to the evaluation mode that some software offers where you  
> can only touch a handful of files.
> I find screenshots difficult to wrap my head around - largely 
> because the  
> explanations tend not to be quite as good as they should be. Same 
> goes for  
> flash, as a rule, although I have seen flash simulations that 
> actually let  
> you pretend to be doing the action and are therefore effective. 
> Neither of  
> these tend to match what users actually run into in an accessibility  
> context, so they tend not to be that helpful unless very carefully done.
> Flash is making progress - there are specific improvements 
> between MX and  
> 2004, but there are also still significant problems for both authors and  
> users. Whether you see a big fat donut, or a very large hole, depends on  
> what you are trying to achieve. Both are justified views, I think, from  
> certain reasonable and common perspectives.
> Not sure how much that helps. Hopefully some...
> cheers
> Chaals

Yes, I agree there are pluses and minuses for both, and it does help getting others opinions on this list, even if all they are is just even some perspective.

Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 05:00:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:28 UTC