[thelist] Jakob Nielsen [was Anti-aliasing]

[Bill Haenel]

> >So that makes it OK to use Flash? By this logic I could conceivably use
> >Flash to build the entirety of my site, IF my objective was to create an
> >experience for those who can use Flash and who don't mind attempting to
> >become familiar with a new navigational concept.
>
> If the purpose of your site is to present demonstration pieces to
> show the capabilities of Flash, sure. Many personal sites are like that.
>
> It's somewhat like the old guild system - as an apprentice or journeyman
> you'd produce demonstration pieces with little practical application to
> show your elders in the craft (NB *not* clients) whether you are capable
> of the craft's skills.

Well, I sort of agree, but not really... Here at the radio station we have a
slightly different issue, and it is often difficult to step around. For
example, we put together a nice movie that flips through some great photos
of boat - an Ice Breaker to be specific - going down the St Lawrence Seaway
(up here in the Almost Great White North), accompanied by really fantastic
audio. We did it in Flash, as it seemed simple enough at the time. We have
also done similar stuff using Real Slide Show, etc. All cool, but in itself,
horrifically UN-usable, and always at least 50% inaccessible to those with
disabilities. This is of great importance to us, since we are a PUBLIC radio
station and get a bit of money from THE GUBMINT, as well as most importantly
from the public. The challenge is... we can do it, but should we?
(bandwidth, processor, accessibility, etc.)


> >= Is it necessary for all sites to meet a standard level of usability AND
> >accessibility? And if not, why not? If so, why so?

> Not all, but so many that the number will be almost indistinguishable
> from 'all'. WAI recommendations should be the default, and to deviate
> needs a case-by-case justification.

Great point, well worded, easy to remember