W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Opinions please - flash site, flash navigation - but accessible alternative

From: <goliver@accease.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:12:11 -0800 (PST)
To: j.byrne@gcal.ac.uk
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020121121213.16260.c000-h006.c000.wm@mail.accease.com.criticalpath.net>
Hi Jim

People with disabilities, as far as I am aware, don't
want a separate site, they want to use the same thing
as everything else.
In consequence I would be very wary about a starting
off point which is 'one site for us' and 'one site for

2. Depending on what type of learning difficulties you
are dealing with the flash site may be more accessible
than the HTML site! 
There may be some animation that aids comprehension
better than 'static stuff'. 
Whether this would be better authored in another tool,
such as Magpie, is beyond me (Charles?)

3. There must be a healthy budget to be able to afford
two different versions. Perhaps the money may be better
spent on one universal site? This may cut the
development cost and increase the money that can be
spent on testing (by disabled people) thus improving
the overall accessibility of the site.

I have done some testing recently on a site containing
Flash and under IE4 it takes about 6 times as long to
render the Home Page than under other browsers (3
minutes <grin>).
This may be to do with the fact that IE4 has got Flash
4 installed and the site wishes me to upgrade to Flash
What it says to me though is that it may be worth
asking the developers if they are aware of such issues
and how to deal with them.

Graham Oliver

On Mon, 21 January 2002, Jim Byrne wrote

> I would like some thoughts and opinions about the
> I am providing advice on accessibility issues for
Website aimed at people
> with learning difficulties. The contracted Web
designers would like to use
> flash for much of the site - including the main
navigation. Their argument
> being that they will also offer and alternative
version which will be W3c
> compliant - and thus meet accessibility criteria.
> 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.
> What are peoples thoughts on this? would you advise
agains this - or does it
> not matter - as long as the alternative is accessible?
> Thanks,
> Jim
> -- 
> Jim Byrne Project Director, The Making Connections
Unit, Glasgow Caledonian
> University, Glasgow G4 OBA, 0141 331 3893
> Everything you need to know about publishing
accessible information on the
> Web.
> The Making Connections Unit: http://www.mcu.org.uk/
> Scottish Disability Information Mailing list:
> http://www.mcu.org.uk/mailinglists/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 15:12:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC