[thelist] flash accessibility/usability

Thu Feb 28 07:53:01 CST 2002

Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

-------------------- Start of message text --------------------

Subject:    RE: [thelist] flash accessibility/usability

>At 10:13 AM +0000 2/28/02, martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com wrote:
>>My point all along has been "It's difficult to tell whether the problem
>>is with the tool, or the way it's used - but if it's so commonly misused
>>does the distinction matter?"

>Uninstall the Flash Player if the net effect bothers you

Erik, whether it bothers *me* or not has very little bearing on
the discussion.

>Anyhow, if Flash's overall nature is such that
>it's more harmful than good, it will eventually bring about it's own
>demise (at least I don't see a well funded Flash swindle going on).

I would totally agree.

The way I see it ending up is that unless Flash improves to place
where there isn't a strong division to the user between Flash and
HTML/CSS (ie it gets all the stuff you get for free with HTML so
screenreaders can get it, it uses standard browser architecture
like Back buttons by default (obviously there may be situations where
Back buttons don't apply)), it will be used as often as frames are today
ie only in very specific situations.

>>Y'see, that's one of the basic problems with Flash - very few people
>>*know* when it adds value.

>Who's "value" are you adding?

Value to whoever is paying for it. Right now, not many clients have the
ability to truely evaluate *most* kinds of web technologies and whether
they have a bottom line benefit case.

>Although you might disagree, I think
t>here's been quite a bit of thought and research that's gone into
>websites promoting major motion pictures, fore example ... I don't
>remember the last time I went to a movie site that wasn't heavy on
>the Flash.

http://charlottegraymovie.warnerbros.com/cmp/main.html
It has one slot on the page which is sometimes used for Flash
movies, only one of which ("The Time") does anything which is
above and beyond a static image.

If you're presenting movies, it makes sense to use movies to promote
them. I think the LOTR Flash trailer was successful. I think the LOTR
*site* wasn't, for the reason you mention:

>And I agree that often, the barrier it puts between me and
>the soundtrack listing or pix or cast bios irritates me

And I think it would for anyone who visited the site a few times,
which given the long build up to and through the series will hurt them.

>... but that's us - there's a hell of a lot of people that DON'T spend
8-12
>hours a day connected to the Internet:

Yup. And most of the research shows that on the whole, they don't know
and don't care about the technology, but if it stops them doing what
they're
at a site to do, they will come and burn your house down (exaggeration).

>the further we can take them
>from the experience of newspapers and delivery receipts and faxes and
>inventory sheets and amber and black CRT's - well, the better the
>Internet experience seems to them.

I've never been visited a website on an amber and black CRT. The
difference between email and fax other than you don't have to walk
to the fax machine but you can't scribble notes on an email in the
same way is negligible. And people *like* delivery receipts - try
running a retail site without them.

>And maybe you'd also want to add a large ISP's "value" into it: I
>couldn't begin to imagine how much bandwidth would be saved if even
>10% of the animated gifs out there would have been done in Flash ...

...even more if 10% of the animated gifs out there which don't add
value by being animated were static. But if you're arguing that Flash
is a handy vector replacement for some images, then sure. But
I still want to see alternative text, and images for those who don't
have/use the plugin.

>and that includes the extra JavaScript and HTML you'd need to be
>absolutely certain the visitor saw a Flash movie or a bitmap.

It's rare that that's the case from the user's perspective.

>At 10:17 AM +0000 2/28/02, martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com wrote:
>>in what situations would you tell a client
>>that using Flash would be A Bad Idea?

>You'd be surprised at the number of ways I have of saying, "The thing
>is that the navigation and a simple logo can download in just a
>second or two, and then we can show them the intro with sound and
>stuff."

Um that's telling the client that the Flash is a *good* idea. Which
isn't what I asked.

>And what would you tell a
>client are the limitations of Flash?

Half my clients have been places that already know what Flash can and
can't do and the other half don't bother to ask whether something can
be done in Flash but just ask if it's possible in general.

[trivial examples snipped]

>I can't think of anything else and none of these things have
>(realistic) non-Flash equivalents anyway ... not sure why I didn't
>just note that it wouldn't make sense to think about using Flash for
>something it was limited from doing.

So in pretty much every case, you're reaching for your Flash?
Cheers
Martin

--------------------- End of message text --------------------

This e-mail is sent by the above named in their
individual, non-business capacity and is not on
behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers may monitor outgoing and incoming
e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and
telecommunications systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.