[thelist] flash accessibility/usability

[.jeff]

erik,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Erik Mattheis
>
> My working theory, which seems to be supported
> throughout this thread, is that some visitors prefer
> something that looks "cool" and has a bit of "zip"
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

the sellability of "cool" and "hip" to users ends after the first visit.  if
after the first time they visit they have to wait for the fancy animations
before getting at the content, they'll soon decide to go elsewhere.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> So when giving visitors a choice it makes sense to me to
> spend more of the budget in the design of the verion
> intended for those that will appreciate the design.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

absolutely.  this comes back to the $64,000 answer to most everything
web-related -- know your fscking audience.  if you don't, how can you expect
to be able to design something for them.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > build the html version first and then build the flash
> > version.  oh wait, if you've already got the html
> > version and it does what it's supposed to, what's
> > the point in building a second version in a different
> > medium?
>
> My experience has been that Flash websites get more
> visitors. I've even done a redesign on a website that
> went from 100% Flash to 100% HTML/bitmap graphics - and
> in hindsight, I still believe the HTML version is
> designed better. Yet hits went down with the HTML
> revision.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i can tell that you're implying that this metric indicates the users
preferred the flash version.  i don't know how you're measuring your traffic
for the flash versions, but the reduction in traffic could mean the users
are able to find the information they're looking for easier/faster/fewer
clicks in the html version.  maybe the flash version had more/better
marketing.  maybe the html version was too design-heavy, making the user
wait too long for the content.  maybe the content in the html version wasn't
updated as often.  maybe some key features of the flash site that were
responsible for a large part of the traffic weren't ported to the html
version.  needless to say, without understanding all the parameters it's
hard to say what's responsible for the difference in traffic.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > absolutely.  that's what i'm trying to convey as well.
> > my point is that often times the ability for the user
> > to get at that information is often hindered (alittle,
> > alot, or completely) by the use of flash as the
> > delivery mechanism.  in many instances where this
> > occurs, it's done simply for the gee-whiz factor and
> > not because flash is/was the best tool for the job.
>
> So your real gripe is with particular Flash developers/
> designers and not Flash in general ...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

correct.  don't go thinking that flash is special just cause i picked this
thread to be involved.  ;p

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> what's the use of identifying a group of "bad Flash
> developers/designers" ... shouldn't your gripes be
> directed at "bad designers/developers" and leave the
> fact that they've displayed their ineptitude through
> Flash as a footnote?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

possibly.  when exposing bad design, it's still important to note the
particulars about the implementation or technology that caused the
disconnect between the sales pitch and the user to begin with.  only if we
know what we're dealing with can we know if it's the technology or the
implementation we have to blame for this failure.

that being said, i think there are very valid uses for flash.  i'm concerned
about how non-flash users are handled so they don't lose out on the valuable
(hopefully) information being presented with flash.  that's it.

.jeff

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