[thelist] flash accessibility/usability

[.jeff]

john,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: John Dowdell
>
> > so, if they can be accomplished, why aren't more
> > people removing these stumbling blocks to the
> > usability/accessibility of flash?  answer -- it
> > takes too much work to discover all the built-in
> > browser functionality you need to include and then
> > build programming logic within your flash file to
> > handle.
>
> What are you trying to accomplish, specifically?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'm trying to discover what objections of mine regarding expected interface
behavior are moot in flash.  that way, when a client comes to me with this
grand idea of using flash for something i can be educated enough to say
"yay" or "nay" on the idea and give them supporting arguments for my
position -- hopefully ones they'll understand and concede to.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I'm going through that "Jakob Nielsen" retitled thread,
> and it seems like some of the re-run objections are
> because certain browser gestures are not available to
> browser extensions... "back button", "text resize",
> "Find text", "new window", etc. Is this what you're
> talking about, above? that the browsers don't offer all
> interface gestures to their extensions?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

re-runs.  new to me.  andy griffith knows all of that all to well.

yes, i'm talking about "interface gestures" not being implemented similarly
within browser extensions.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Hold it, I saw another message from you in that thread,
> with some unusual quoting style, and when I scrolled a
> few screens down I see a laundry list of
> change-requests. It seems like you've been to some sites
> and wish that their choice of UI was more like a
> browser's choices.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

not so much that i wish it were closer to the browser's ui.  it's more like
there are some fundamental things missing from the flash ui of the various
sites -- the same problems i see all over the web when looking at the
flasturbation that abounds.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Me, I often wonder why Tan Tan Noodles don't taste like
> a Super Carnitas Burrito, but I use different meals for
> different things.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

but you still consume them the same way, right?  the ultimate goal is
sustenance.  how you get that sustenance is what we're talking about.  in
other words, you don't suck the tan tan noodles through your nose so you can
avoid their taste, but still consume them.  you also don't eat the fork,
plastic or metal, because your system wasn't designed to digest that sort of
material.  to bring this poor analogy of yours back to the web -- there are
some very basic things that must be in place for users to "consume" the
information at a website, regardless of the delivery mechanism (html, flash,
gif-text, etc.).  if one or more of those basic things isn't in place it
makes it more difficult for the user.  since, in most cases, the web is
about removing as many of those barriers as possible, it makes since to know
the limitations/requirements of the chosen delivery mechanisms and choose
which one you'll be using.  for example, if a fair percentage of your users
have impaired vision, you'd be better suited to using very simple html as
your delivery mechanism and keep the graphics-rich flashturbation out of the
project.  if it's about getting every last e-com dollar from your visitor,
flash may not be a good choice.  after all, all visitors to your site will
have a browser, but not all will have flash installed/enabled.  i can hear
the flash proponents yelling, "but spinning logos and flames make them wanna
buy more stuff", which has been proven over and over again to *not* be the
case.  the things we can do to improve sales can be done without flash --
additional/related product recommendations, product reviews, frequent buyer
discounts, free shipping, etc.

now, back to flash and its usefulness.  sure, it could be used to display a
3d mockup of the object for the user to inspect. thinking this will close
the sale is a rather uneducated assumption.  if the rest of the aspects of
the "sales pitch" can't sell the product without the bit of flash then the
addition of the flash won't have any positive impact on securing the sale.

bottom line, flash should be viewed as an enhancement, not a requirement for
user interaction.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're
> endorsing that "Flash 99% Bad" rant just because the
> various browsers do have different feature sets than a
> particular (and uniform!) browser extension...?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

where did i say i endorsed the "flash 99% bad" rant?

i'm simply complaining about the various things that are either broken,
non-existent, or behave strangely in the flash i've seen.  remember my
comment about some very basic things that have to be in place for users to
"consume" the content?  well, i'm saying some of these basics are missing.
some of the ones that are missing are simply impossible to implement and
this fact should be considered when weighing the cost/benefit of using flash
for any particular project.

+1 to all of what ben just posted as well:

http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-20020225/104510.html

thanks,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/