WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Bridge page wording

for

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Jun 23, 2005 10:36AM

> 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