WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Flash replacement - testing needed

for

From: Terrence Wood
Date: Nov 21, 2004 1:37PM

I think the only other drawbacks of this method additional to those
mentioned by Terence (not including the source order and heading issues
which are design issues, not sIFR issues) are:

1. The flash text will not resize if the text is resized after loading
the page -- however, reloading the page will resize it.

2. Selecting text doesn't provide the visual feedback you expect when
selecting text -- it is entirely uncertain what text is selected until
it is pasted elsewhere. This is the biggest issue with this method IMHO.


Terrence Wood.


On 2004-11-22 4:44 AM, terence wrote:
> <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
>
> Hi guys... I have been experimenting with a technique called sIFR
>
> No screen readers at the moment, however--
>
> Worked fine in a text-only browser. I have preference bar installed with
> Mozilla with a "Flash Killer" button. When that was activated the flash
> text vanished but was not replaced, that is, the headings went blank.
[snip]
> both the Flash text and the XHTML text
> displayed if CSS was disabled or a user style sheet was employed and
> Flash and scripting were on.
[snip]
> If the screen reader users do not have problems and these other things
> are fixed, this looks like a good solution. I doubt many users are using
> a Flash Killer as there is no work-around for this - modem users are
> likely to bail out of a page which downloads too slowly. I use it if the
> download is slow, so I can see if there is anything on the page besides
> flash I might want to look at.
--
*******************************************************************
Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards?
Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004.

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details
*******************************************************************