- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 23:33:38 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
The article Flash and Shockwave Explored, by Josh Smith discusses the backwards compatibility issues of Flash and Shockwave, the differences between the two, and good authoring practices for creating these 2 file types. There is supposedly a flash and shockwave compatibility table, but the link did not work when I tried it. Note that the article is not hosted by the most accessible site, there are many images with out alt-text. It was published 7 January 2000 and is available at http://webreview.com/pub/2000/01/07/feature/index2.html. Four bits that I found interesting; 1. <blockquote> According to Macromedia's own research, 90% of users have the Flash plug-in installed; meanwhile 52% of users have the Shockwave plug-in. </blockquote> 2. <blockquote> Slocombe, however, is a little less enamoured with Flash. "Almost every Flash demonstration I've ever seen has involved a little dot in the middle of the screen getting bigger and bigger. How exactly does that add to the user experience? It doesn't. " </blockquote> 3. <blockquote> many customers have seen sales and hits increase two or three-fold by using Shockwave or Flash, which makes the number of visitors lost by using a plug-in insignificant in comparison.</blockquote> 4. <blockquote> The safest answer is to ensure that your site, if it does feature embedded files that require plug-ins, doesn't exclusively rely on them. Have a simple HTML version of the same content. That way, you're keeping everyone happy. </blockquote> --wendy -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative madison, wi usa tel: +1 608 663 6346 /--
Received on Monday, 14 February 2000 23:30:05 UTC