E-mail List Archives
Thread: Bridge page wording
Number of posts in this thread: 15 (In chronological order)
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 7:09AM
Subject: Bridge page wording
No previous message | Next message →
We have a client that has a Flash version and an HTML version of the
same site. The Flash version will be by its very nature not accessible
to all (marketing speak, games, loads of moving sliding and bouncing
bits) and is not meant to be. Both versions have the same data, and
get generated from one source. As it stands now, they automatically
send Flash users to the singing and dancing version, which is clearly
a bad idea. I proposed a bridge page to let the visitor choose.
What are your thoughts on the wording, or is there any better version?
Welcome to XYZ
We try to give our visitors the best experience possible, but we are
restricted by the technology of the web. We also realise that our
visitors access the web differently.
This diversity can mean that the needs or expectations of one group
might interfere with those of the other.
Therefore we give you the choice and offer two different versions of
the site. Both have the same information, they only differ in their
form of delivery.
The traditional version relies on HTML and traditional web
technologies to deliver the information fast and easy.
The enhanced version uses Flash, requires a modern browser and can not
be used without a mouse. If you have Flash enabled and you can use a
mouse then this version will make your visit a lot more enjoyable.
Please choose your desired version:
Traditional
Enhanced
|_| Remember my choice and don't show this page the next time
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 9:14AM
Subject: RE: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
Chris,
If you'll forgive me, the intro seems like excuses; flash can be
designed to be accessible. Anything that isn't accessible is a lack of
intent (whether due to the preference of the client or not) or a failure
of the imagination.
Might I suggest you don't try to make excuses and simple offer
the user the choice of 1. High-bandwidth Flash version or 2. Non-flash
HTML version. Very rarely should you encounter an user that needs to be
aware of the difference that wouldn't want it laid out in those
versions. I see intro pages all the time that offer the choice of 1
FLASH or 2 HTML version of their website.
Best of luck,
Norman
From: HAA
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 9:15AM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
I dont see anything wrong with the wording Christian. Simple, but explanatary.
At 14:10 23/06/2005, you wrote:
>We have a client that has a Flash version and an HTML version of the
>same site. The Flash version will be by its very nature not accessible
>to all (marketing speak, games, loads of moving sliding and bouncing
>bits) and is not meant to be. Both versions have the same data, and
>get generated from one source. As it stands now, they automatically
>send Flash users to the singing and dancing version, which is clearly
>a bad idea. I proposed a bridge page to let the visitor choose.
>
>What are your thoughts on the wording, or is there any better version?
>
>
>Welcome to XYZ
>
>We try to give our visitors the best experience possible, but we are
>restricted by the technology of the web. We also realise that our
>visitors access the web differently.
>
>This diversity can mean that the needs or expectations of one group
>might interfere with those of the other.
>
>Therefore we give you the choice and offer two different versions of
>the site. Both have the same information, they only differ in their
>form of delivery.
>
>The traditional version relies on HTML and traditional web
>technologies to deliver the information fast and easy.
>
>The enhanced version uses Flash, requires a modern browser and can not
>be used without a mouse. If you have Flash enabled and you can use a
>mouse then this version will make your visit a lot more enjoyable.
>
>Please choose your desired version:
>
>Traditional
>
>Enhanced
>
> |_| Remember my choice and don't show this page the next time
>
>--
>Chris Heilmann
>Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
>Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
>Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
>
>
>
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 9:20AM
Subject: RE: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
> Robinson, Norman B
> flash can be
> designed to be accessible. Anything that isn't accessible is a lack of
> intent (whether due to the preference of the client or not)
as in "the client has a preference not to buy the very latest version of
Windows Eyes to access the flash"?
> or a failure of the imagination
or a failure of budget, or sheer impossibility of making it accessible
(or how would YOU make a flash game a la Pong or similar accessible to a
screenreader user, for instance).
In the real world, flash is still not a universally accessible format,
and often content can't be made accessible for good reason.
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 9:22AM
Subject: RE: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
> Christian Heilmann
> We have a client that has a Flash version and an HTML version of the
> same site. The Flash version will be by its very nature not accessible
> to all (marketing speak, games, loads of moving sliding and bouncing
> bits) and is not meant to be. Both versions have the same data, and
> get generated from one source. As it stands now, they automatically
> send Flash users to the singing and dancing version, which is clearly
> a bad idea. I proposed a bridge page to let the visitor choose.
How about just a discrete "View non-flash version" (or something a bit sexier
and less techie sounding) and matching "View flash version" on those pages.
Also, you could possibly pipe those links through an additional bit of
script that sets a cookie, so if the user chose to click through to the
non-flash version, the browser remembers it next time (similar to what
you obviously want to implement, but without necessarily asking the user,
but simply taking a cue from their choice).
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 9:54AM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
> > We have a client that has a Flash version and an HTML version of the
> > same site. The Flash version will be by its very nature not accessible
> > to all (marketing speak, games, loads of moving sliding and bouncing
> > bits) and is not meant to be. Both versions have the same data, and
> > get generated from one source. As it stands now, they automatically
> > send Flash users to the singing and dancing version, which is clearly
> > a bad idea. I proposed a bridge page to let the visitor choose.
>
> How about just a discrete "View non-flash version" (or something a bit sexier
> and less techie sounding) and matching "View flash version" on those pages.
Well, the problem is that the client will not spend any money on flash
accessibility, therefore they wanted to ensure that the HTML version
is advertised to the user as the "accessible" one.
As you rightfully answered beforehand, it is not a matter of being
lazy, crap or bad Flash developers, it is a matter of budget and
buy-in from the client. The flash is created dynamically via Turbine,
too, so there are not as many options to make the flash acccessible as
you have with hand-developed fFash.
> Also, you could possibly pipe those links through an additional bit of
> script that sets a cookie, so if the user chose to click through to the
> non-flash version, the browser remembers it next time (similar to what
> you obviously want to implement, but without necessarily asking the user,
> but simply taking a cue from their choice).
That was a part of the text, there will be a "remember my choice"
checkbox, so that next time the same visitor arrives there is no
bridge page any longer.
Cheers
Chris (btw, where is the picture you shot of me at the @media
pissup^H^H^H^H^H^H^H networking party?)
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 10:07AM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
>> flash can be
>> designed to be accessible. Anything that isn't accessible is a lack of
>> intent (whether due to the preference of the client or not)
>
> as in "the client has a preference not to buy the very latest version
> of
> Windows Eyes to access the flash"?
I understand your point here, but want to point out that while it was
once correct to say that you need the latest version of JAWS or
Window-Eyes to access Flash, this is no longer true. It is worthwhile
to be accurate rather than have this type of statement become part of
the accessibility dogma that newcomers hear and assume is true.
Blind or visually impaired users need one of the following versions of
an assistive technology tool:
JAWS 4.5
JAWS 5.0
JAWS 5.1
JAWS 6.0
JAWS 6.1
Window-Eyes 4.2
Window-Eyes 4.5
Window-Eyes 5.0
IBM HomePage Reader 3.04
Dolphin HAL/Supernova 5.0
ZoomText Magnifier/ScreenReader 8.1
> or a failure of budget, or sheer impossibility of making it accessible
> (or how would YOU make a flash game a la Pong or similar accessible to
> a
> screenreader user, for instance).
It doesn't sound like that's what Chris is talking about. If he's made
an equivalent HTML site, I feel confident that the Flash one doesn't
have Pong! You're right in that some things, such as many games, can't
be accessible in Flash (or java, ajax, svg, etc), but a web site with
text, links, and graphics can be accessible as long as the user has a
tool that supports it. For those kinds of sites is there a point in
time where you'd say that an HTML fallback for the site is no longer
needed?
AWK
--
Andrew Kirkpatrick
WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
125 Western Ave.
Boston, MA 02134
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
617.300.4420
From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 10:13AM
Subject: RE: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick,
Norman previously wrote "flash can be designed to be accessible.
Anything that isn't accessible is a lack of intent (whether due to the
preference of the client or not)..." to which Patrick Lauke responded
"as in "the client has a preference not to buy the very latest version
of Windows Eyes to access the flash?"
There is not always the extreme. There is more than one way to provide
access. That may include designing such that a screen reader isn't
needed. It all depends and I would have to see the intended content to
be able to apply some reasoning. I will say that I would place the
responsibility for having a screen reader on the designer - I don't see
this as any different than testing with alternate browsers, if it is
important to you as a designer and developer of web content.
Norman previously wrote: "...or a failure of the imagination.." to which
Patrick responded "or a failure of budget, or sheer impossibility of
making it accessible (or how would YOU make a flash game a la Pong or
similar accessible to a screenreader user, for instance). In the real
world, flash is still not a universally accessible format, and often
content can't be made accessible for good reason."
Reality is that budget sometimes kills the entire project - not just
accessibility. I'm also aware it is difficult to communicate the need
for accessibility if it costs additional money. That is why
accessibility should be part of the design. I wouldn't expect a client
to debate my insertion of alternate text for images as something
unnecessary or a place where not providing them would allow the saving
of time and money. To a degree, other parts of accessibility can be
viewed in similar fashion. In the example we debate, I think it would be
fair to consider the time to provide a text alternative if it fits
within budget and schedule. If you don't know how, it would be too
expensive for the client to pay for your research. If you know how, then
it could be the extra 5 minutes added to each 20 minutes of FLASH
coding.
I'm not a flash guru coder. Yes, in the real world, flash is not
universally accessible but sadly, neither is some HTML content. I don't
use the negative as an excuse for not trying, for not focusing on how we
can solve the problems. I have seen flash used where the controls were
accessible and read either by my screen reader or by sound events that
described what action the control (next, forward, reload) performed.
I didn't have an example of the content being referenced with the bridge
page. Certainly if it is all visual, then it may not be any benefit to a
non-sighted user. It was mentioned all the content was also generated
into HTML at the same time as the FLASH and I would expect that there is
more items that could be accessible, simply on the commonality of that
alone.
Although your challenge to me was to make a game of pong accessible,
which is intently visual, spatial, and doesn't lend itself to textual
information easily, I think I could do it! In this instance I think
FLASH would make it accessible where no other program could do so! I
might use the keyboard arrow keys, center using space bar, provide audio
feedback on the location of the ball relative to the paddle, with
frequency of the audio determining how close you are to the ball. What
about bouncing off the edges? I'd provide another audio keyed to the
motion of top of the screen to the bottom of the screen. I would also
use volume to indicate how far or near the ball was to the paddle.
Actually, that would be really cool to be able to play pong with my
blind friends!
Is that perfect? Maybe not. I just want to encourage the attempt at
providing accessibility even when the tools themselves are inherently
visual. I sincerely didn't intent to be anything but constructive in my
comments.
Regards,
Norman Robinson
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 10:36AM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
> I understand your point here, but want to point out that while it was
> once correct to say that you need the latest version of JAWS or
> Window-Eyes to access Flash, this is no longer true. It is worthwhile
> to be accurate rather than have this type of statement become part of
> the accessibility dogma that newcomers hear and assume is true.
> Blind or visually impaired users need one of the following versions of
> an assistive technology tool:
[...lotsascreenreadersandothertools...]
Well, that all is beside the issue though when the flash requires a
mouse, as some bits are drag and drop interfaces. I am always
fascinated that a lot of people seem to consider the support for
screen readers the ultimate in accessibility.
When the design of a product per definition is not accessible to
non-mouse users or by its very nature depends on visual representation
(maps, anyone?) then no screen reader can help and the only way to
make it not harmful is to tell the user up front that it cannot be
used and that there is an alternative version.
While a lot of "accessible versions" are a sad excuse for proper
development (in the plain html/css world), there are situations where
they are appropriate.
One example on this site is a nutrition calculator, which is an easy
data table with all the right markup in HTML but a drag and drop "fun
to use" game-like application in the flash one.
The client paid for the development time of the accessible data table
after he saw the "fun to use" one, his initial offer was "to use the
table as an image to cut down development cost" and
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 10:47AM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
> Well, that all is beside the issue though when the flash requires a
> mouse, as some bits are drag and drop interfaces. I am always
Some screen readers do allow users to drag and drop. I'm not going to
say that this is particularly usable by screen reader users, however...
> fascinated that a lot of people seem to consider the support for
> screen readers the ultimate in accessibility.
That's not what I said, nor meant. I simply wanted to clarify that "you
need the latest version of..." is no longer accurate.
AWK
--
Andrew Kirkpatrick
WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
125 Western Ave.
Boston, MA 02134
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
617.300.4420
From: Michael Moore
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 10:54AM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
Christian Heilmann wrote:
> One example on this site is a nutrition calculator, which is an easy
> data table with all the right markup in HTML but a drag and drop "fun
> to use" game-like application in the flash one.
> The client paid for the development time of the accessible data table
> after he saw the "fun to use" one, his initial offer was "to use the
> table as an image to cut down development cost" and
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 11:19AM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick Lauke wrote:
> How about just a discrete "View non-flash version" (or something a bit sexier
> and less techie sounding) and matching "View flash version" on those pages.
To clarify (as I just saw that it wasn't that clear): I meant having
that link on every page, and dispensing with a bridge page altogether.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
______
re
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 12:50PM
Subject: RE: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
> Blind or visually impaired users need one of the following
> versions of an assistive technology tool:
Good point, but let's not fall into the common habit of thinking
accessibility = a blind person can use it.
Flash is still inaccessible to a variety of folks...PDA browsers, text
browsers, people will motor skill issues, people with older
hardware/software, people like me who just hate flash most of the time, etc.
That doesn't make Flash bad, of course.
-Darrel
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 12:50PM
Subject: RE: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | Next message →
> What are your thoughts on the wording, or is there any better version?
I would use:
Flash Version (requires flash plug in)
HTML Version
Making each a link.
No one will read that verbose introduction as proposed, though it could
certainly placed below as ancillary information.
-Darrel
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Jun 23 2005 4:17PM
Subject: Re: Bridge page wording
← Previous message | No next message
> > One example on this site is a nutrition calculator, which is an easy
> > data table with all the right markup in HTML but a drag and drop "fun
> > to use" game-like application in the flash one.
> > The client paid for the development time of the accessible data table
> > after he saw the "fun to use" one, his initial offer was "to use the
> > table as an image to cut down development cost" and