[thelist] flash accessibility/usability

[Ben Dyer]

On 02:35 PM 2/26/2002, John Dowdell said to me:
>At 7:51 AM 2/26/2, Ben Dyer wrote:
> >  How can Flash be used today?  Here are the options as I see it:
>
>I'm not sure if we're talking about something talkable here... seems like
>you're asserting a personal view of the universe, which would not be
>debatable. Or maybe you're trying to persuade others that that's a useful
>categorization? Sorry, I'm not sure...?

Nope, sorry.  Since you deleted the rest of my post:

>1. Complete Flash Site
>(Bad for all the reasons already mentioned.)
>
>2. Flash Navigation
>(Bad for accessibility.  Having an alternate version makes the Flash
>version moot here.)
>
>3. Flash Elements ("We can do a spinning logo or flaming logo.")
>(The bulk of Flash's usage and usually pointless.  Done most often to make
>clients happy that their logo moves.)
>
>4. Flash Ads
>(Which, of course, drive everybody nuts, and if the general public figures
>out how to switch "Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins" to "Disable" or
>"Prompt", Flash is screwed.)
>
>5. Flash "Extras"
>(Probably the best use of Flash.  Games or photo galleries or
>whatever.  It's not forced, it's not required, but it provides something
>useful and extra that the user can't do otherwise.)

This is it.  The bulk of Flash can pretty much be lumped into these general
categories.

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).

>The problem in this thread is that I'm then tempted to pick things out of
>the post, but I'm not sure what you're really seeking with the post...?

I'm afraid I have to ask you the same question.  I'm seeking validity to
the original complaint against Jakob Nielsen:

   "Prove that 99% of Flash is NOT bad."***

***Where "bad" is defined as inaccessible, breaking common usability rules,
impedes the user and fails to add value above and beyond methods that
already exist.

My opinion/point/thesis/topic sentence involves the categorization
above.  Why use Flash (for whole site, navigation, animations,
advertisements, etc.) when the equivalent for everything that Flash does in
this regard (in terms of communicating the information) is already
available by other means?

- Why develop a completely Flash site when the accessible, usable
equivalent is already available?
- Why design Flash navigation when the accessible, usable equivalent is
already available?
- Why add pointless Flash elements/animations when they merely add page weight?
- Why have Flash advertisements that serve to irritate your userbase?

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.

--Ben


Ben Dyer, Senior Internet Developer, Imaginuity Interactive
http://www.imaginuity.com/

     If you save the world too often, it begins to expect it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   http://members.evolt.org/OKolzig37/     http://www.evolt.org/