- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:33:36 -0500
- To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I'd like to suggest that instead of html the alternative site should be non flash this leaves room for goodies if you want to put them in there that you don't have to go to great lengths to explain and allows for even more compliant implementation. I am sad though that the only reason for building a complient site is to get around non compliance. In other words, I'd be proud that my site was compliant so would want to feature it as the main site. Even the other way round, if you have an entry point that allows you to take a left turn or a right turn, Why bother emphasizing one over the other. High bandwidth and low bandwidth mixtures are done all the time and in increasing numbers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Opinions please - flash site, flash navigation - but accessible alternative On 1/21/02 11:47 AM, Jim Byrne (j.byrne@gcal.ac.uk) wrote: > > Users will enter a compliant page and then choose between HTML and Flash. if > they choose HTML they get a compliant site and if they choose Flash they > don't. The Flash site is considered to be 'the main site' - and will not be > compliant with W3c Accessibility Guidelines. If this is the chosen route, you need to make sure that the developers hit as many of the WCAG guidelines as possible. Just because the site is made with Flash doesn't mean that the web content guidelines should be abandoned. Depending on what the site looks like and does, you may be able to have a Flash navigation and other flash features in an html site. There are ways of adding html-based alternatives to flash that will allow the site to be accessible (e.g. adding a layer beneath the flash navigation that contains html links). If you are planning on including audio or video, these can be captioned and described both in the Flash and in the html versions. You may have heard that the next version of Flash will add authoring support for creating accessible content, and the next player will include support for assistive technologies that support MSAA. Perhaps you can get the developers to fix the Flash side of the site after the release of the next version of Flash? A great advantage of your site being in HTML is that you can fix small problems without going back to the developer. Unless you get the FLA (the authoring file type) as well as the SWF (the output file type) as deliverables you could be stuck going back to the developers for every little fix. Andrew -- Andrew Kirkpatrick, Technical Project Coordinator CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media 125 Western Ave. Boston, MA 02134 E-mail: andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org Web site: ncam.wgbh.org 617-300-4420 (direct voice/FAX) 617-300-3400 (main NCAM) 617-300-2489 (TTY) WGBH enriches people's lives through programs and services that educate, inspire, and entertain, fostering citizenship and culture, the joy of learning, and the power of diverse perspectives.
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 14:33:42 UTC