[thelist] flash accessibility/usability

[Erik Mattheis]

At 3:47 PM -0600 2/26/02, Ben Dyer wrote:
>This is it.  The bulk of Flash can pretty much be lumped into these general
>categories.

That you think that's the bulk of what Flash can do shows that you
know next to nothing about Flash. Really. Or do you mean "the bulk of
Flash out there" and are pulling a "guilt by association" on us?

>So, a Flasher would need to convince me of the usefulness of the first four
>(which, like it or not, *is* 99% of the Flash today).

I don't need to convince you of anything - I could care less if
you're completely uninterested in Flash. But it disturbs me that
you're attempting to turn others others who know as little or less
about Flash as you away from it ... and that's unfair to them and
those of us who are trying to make the web a better place by using
Flash.

But OK, I'll humor you ... I can't answer in the context that there's
only your 4 categories of Flash use are the only ones that exist
because it's untrue.

>- Why develop a completely Flash site when the accessible, usable
>equivalent is already available?

Because Flash can sometimes make the site more effective or better in
some other way. For instance if you want to have sound samples that
will play for over 90% of your visitors. Or if you want visitors to
preview what a product would look like with their name or other
message inscribed on it.

>- Why design Flash navigation when the accessible, usable equivalent is
>already available?

Because Flash may sometimes make the navigation more efficient or
better in some other way. For example if you need to fit 120 links
into a 560x140 pixel area and it's for an Intranet who's users have
Navigator 3. Or, if your marketing department requires the links to
be in a particular font and the marketing department also needs to
update the links through a CMS.

>- Why add pointless Flash elements/animations when they merely add
>page weight?

By your definition, there's reason to add anything "pointless"
whether it's a Flash movie, GIF or <b> tag. Leaving out the word
"pointless," I could answer: If filesize is an important
consideration and the types of graphics on your site lend themselves
to being much smaller in Flash ...

Here's a filesize example which also illustrates a few other
advantages of vector graphics over bitmapped:

http://gozz.com/temporary/filesize/filesize.html

>- Why have Flash advertisements that serve to irritate your userbase?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but think you might be asking "what
are the advantages of Flash banners over animated GIF or static
banners?"

You can get more information in less file size, and get a higher
click through rate. If you wanted you could make the banner animate
only when the visitor's mouse was over it. Or it animates a little
while and stops until the visitor moves their mouse over it. You
could also make the same banner different depending on what day of
the week or time it is in the visitors time zone.

>If someone can provide me with an argument for any of the first four that
>doesn't boil down to "Because it Moves," then I'll listen.

Doubtful.
--

__________________________________________
- Erik Mattheis

(612) 377 2272
http://goZz.com/

__________________________________________