E-mail List Archives
Thread: Accessible Flash
Number of posts in this thread: 13 (In chronological order)
From: Paul Collins
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 5:45AM
Subject: Accessible Flash
No previous message | Next message →
Hello all,
I am currently looking at having a photo library built using Flash. All efforts would be undertaken to make the Flash accessible, using captions for all photos, tabindex, labels, etc.
My question is, if the major Screen Readers can pick up Flash if programmed correctly, does this mean my site is still accessible for Priority 2 guidelines? If not, priority 1? The applicable guidelines state "until user agents allow", which to me would mean the fact that they can pick up Flash these days would mean using it would be OK?
Please let me know your thoughts.
1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.
1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation.
Thanks,
Paul
From: L
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 6:30AM
Subject: RE: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
Paul Collins wrote:
"My question is, if the major Screen Readers can pick up Flash if programmed correctly, does this mean my site is still accessible for Priority 2 guidelines?"
Bear in mind the fact that whilst recent versions of the leading screen readers do offer Flash support, there are still a great many people using legacy screen readers who will not have the benefit of this support.
Regards,
L
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 7:00AM
Subject: Re: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
On 13/02/06, Paul Collins < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I am currently looking at having a photo library built using Flash. All efforts would be
> undertaken to make the Flash accessible, using captions for all photos, tabindex,
> labels, etc.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
A very nice photo library, sans Flash:
http://www.couloir.org/
(In other words: what are your reasons for using Flash, and would you
consider *not* using it?)
Tim
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 7:15AM
Subject: Re: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
> A very nice photo library, sans Flash:
> http://www.couloir.org/
>
> (In other words: what are your reasons for using Flash, and would you
> consider *not* using it?)
This is the first time I see someone using prototype and
scriptalicious without using the AJAX options. Seems a bit bloated for
just that effect.
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Paul Collins
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 7:30AM
Subject: Re: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks for all your replies, much appreciated.
The reasons for using Flash was that the library would be easy to manage; easy for uploading content as the CMS is built into it.
Other than that, a bit of presentation, nice fades. The photo library you used was great, thanks Tim.
Thanks again for your comments.
Cheers,
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Beadle
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible Flash
On 13/02/06, Paul Collins < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I am currently looking at having a photo library built using Flash. All efforts would be
> undertaken to make the Flash accessible, using captions for all photos, tabindex,
> labels, etc.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
A very nice photo library, sans Flash:
http://www.couloir.org/
(In other words: what are your reasons for using Flash, and would you
consider *not* using it?)
Tim
From: Schuffman, Jan (General Services - ADA)
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 9:30AM
Subject: RE: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
(Long-time list serv lurker here, seldom poster) My $.02 - I agree with
Leonie. Yes, it's possible to build accessible Flash and yes, the more
modern versions of the industry-standard screen readers can then render
it, but those screen readers can be phenomenally expensive, and many
users' financial situations preclude even upgrading. JAWS,
industry-standard in screen readers, costs as much as $600 just for an
upgrade and $900-1100 for a full install, so many people will use their
legacy versions until they are completely non-functional.
The time will come when most of the visitors who use screen readers will
have software that plays nice with Flash. Till then, though, my party
line continues to be to avoid Flash or, if it must be used, to make sure
a visitor has a chance to opt out of it for an accessible page before
the Flash begins.
Note that this is different from having Flash auto-start if a player is
detected on a computer. A couple who are friends of mine now have two
computers but before they did, it was rough. "He" is 100% blind and uses
JAWS. "She" is not, and enjoys Flash. Whenever he was online and
encountered Flash with an auto-detect and auto-start, he was stuck,
since she had loaded a Flash player on their shared computer. Much
better to ask the user which he/she prefers - the Flash or non-Flash
version of a page.
From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:00AM
Subject: Re: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
> Yes, its possible to build accessible Flash and yes, the more modern versions of the industry-standard screen readers can then render it,
but those screen readers can be phenomenally expensive, and many users financial situations preclude even upgrading.
JAWS, industry-standard in screen readers, costs as much as $600 just for an upgrade and $900-1100 for a full install,
so many people will use their legacy versions until they are completely non-functional.
I also agree with Jan. Screen reader upgrades (JAWS anyway), are very expensive (I am not sure how well HomeReader et al support Flash) so don't penalize users (though I know that not your intention) by using a technology that doesn't speak with their own.
For this very reason, if I was developing a site and using Flash swf's embedded in my pages I would try to make them invisible to screen readers, and place any important info/content in the main body of the page.
Josh
Joshue O Connor
Web Accessibility Consultant
**Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)* *
National Council for the Blind of Ireland
Website:http://www.cfit.ie
E-Mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Tel: +353 1 8821915
Schuffman, Jan (General Services - ADA) wrote:
> (Long-time list serv lurker here, seldom poster) My $.02 I agree with
> Leonie. Yes, its possible to build accessible Flash and yes, the more
> modern versions of the industry-standard screen readers can then render
> it, but those screen readers can be phenomenally expensive, and many
> users financial situations preclude even upgrading. JAWS,
> industry-standard in screen readers, costs as much as $600 just for an
> upgrade and $900-1100 for a full install, so many people will use their
> legacy versions until they are completely non-functional.
>
>
>
> The time will come when most of the visitors who use screen readers will
> have software that plays nice with Flash. Till then, though, my party
> line continues to be to avoid Flash or, if it must be used, to make sure
> a visitor has a chance to opt out of it for an accessible page before
> the Flash begins.
>
>
>
> Note that this is different from having Flash auto-start if a player is
> detected on a computer. A couple who are friends of mine now have two
> computers but before they did, it was rough. He is 100% blind and uses
> JAWS. She is not, and enjoys Flash. Whenever he was online and
> encountered Flash with an auto-detect and auto-start, he was stuck,
> since she had loaded a Flash player on their shared computer. Much
> better to ask the user which he/she prefers the Flash or non-Flash
> version of a page.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
From: Schuffman, Jan (General Services - ADA)
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:30AM
Subject: RE: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
That looks like a nifty little application. If I have that and leave it turned off, does it override auto-detection of Flash? If it makes a Flash-enabled computer act like one without a Flash player, it might be a good way to show people what their sites would look like to someone who doesn't have Flash. Also, do you know how well Flash Switch does/doesn't work with other browsers like Firefox, Opera, etc.?
Jan
________________________________
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of L
From: L
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 10:45AM
Subject: RE: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
Jan Schuffman wrote:
"A couple who are friends of mine now have two computers
but before they did, it was rough. "He" is 100% blind and uses JAWS. "She" is not, and enjoys Flash. Whenever he was online and encountered Flash with
an auto-detect and auto-start, he was stuck, since she had loaded a Flash player on their shared computer. Much better to ask the user which he/she prefers
- the Flash or non-Flash version of a page."
Leaving aside your good advice for a moment, a useful app that I used before I upgraded to a Flash happy screen reader was Flash Switch. Just a simple icon in the System Tray that could turn Flash on or off in an instant.
For more info, should it be of any use:
http://www.flashswitch.com/
Regards,
L
From: L
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 11:00AM
Subject: RE: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
Jan Schuffman wrote:
"That looks like a nifty little application. If I have that and leave it turned off, does it override auto-detection of Flash? If it makes a Flash-enabled
computer act like one without a Flash player, it might be a good way to show people what their sites would look like to someone who doesn't have Flash.
Also, do you know how well Flash Switch does/doesn't work with other browsers like Firefox, Opera, etc.?"
I'm afraid I don't know if it would hide the player from an auto-detect, but I would suspect probably nott. The player is still there on the machine, it is just prevented from kicking into action.
I must also apologise for not knowing how it works with different browsers, as Jaws support for Firefox came about a great deal later than support for Flash and the ability to ignore it from within Jaws itself. I can't imagine why it wouldn't work with other browsers, but that's only a best guess.
If I had a little more time and one less deadline looming, I'd happily test it out, but I'm afraid I'm out of luck on both counts.
Regards,
L
From: Joelle Tegwen
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 11:15AM
Subject: Re: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
There is a flashblock plug in for Firefox, Mozilla and other Netscape
based browsers here http://flashblock.mozdev.org/index.html
Joelle
Schuffman, Jan (General Services - ADA) wrote:
> That looks like a nifty little application. If I have that and leave
> it turned off, does it override auto-detection of Flash? If it makes a
> Flash-enabled computer act like one without a Flash player, it might
> be a good way to show people what their sites would look like to
> someone who doesnt have Flash. Also, do you know how well Flash
> Switch does/doesnt work with other browsers like Firefox, Opera, etc.?
>
> Jan
>
>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 11:30AM
Subject: RE: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | Next message →
> but those screen readers can be phenomenally expensive, and
> many users' financial situations preclude even upgrading.
>
> JAWS, industry-standard in screen readers, costs as much as
> $600 just for an upgrade and $900-1100 for a full install,
Freedom Scientific says that you can upgrade from 4.0 to 7.0 for $400,
and if you pay and additional $120 you get the next two major updates
also. If is not free, but many users do get their software from
employers or state agencies (e.g. users in Massachusetts can get JAWS
from the Mass Commission for the Blind).
> I also agree with Jan. Screen reader upgrades (JAWS anyway),
> are very expensive (I am not sure how well HomeReader et al
> support Flash) so don't penalize users (though I know that
HPR 3.04 supports Flash content quite well.
> For this very reason, if I was developing a site and using
> Flash swf's embedded in my pages I would try to make them
> invisible to screen readers, and place any important
> info/content in the main body of the page.
That's fine for superfluous Flash content, but if you are really using
Flash and taking advantage the programmatic environment to create a rich
internet application it may not be so simple. A flash application may
not be easily replicated on a single page, or even several. There are
definitely challenges in making a flash app or a javascript-enabled
application, but these are challenges that we need to think hard about
and not settle for the "provide an accessible fallback" argument.
AWK
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 12:00PM
Subject: RE: Accessible Flash
← Previous message | No next message
Hi,
JAWS support was introduced in version 4.5 which came out in August
2002. Window-Eyes support was in version 4.2, in March 2002. If you
need to create a non-flash version for backward compatibility reasons,
you need to target a standard installation circa early 2002. The first
accessible version of Flash was available nearly 4 years ago (with JAWS
support three and a half years ago), so you are now talking about
software that is getting old by most standards. [
The only way to be 100% forward and backward compatible is to create a
plain HTML version with javascript and CSS that is highly limited. In
cases where this is a requirement, many designers create an html version
of the Flash site. In these cases, the Flash needs to be accessible
also.
The Couloir example is nice indeed, but it has issues. Did you trying
using the keyboard with it? Without a screen reader shift+tab works but
tab does not. I'm willing to bet that this is not the only keyboard
issue.
With the extensive use of js in this example, you are very likely to run
into issues with older screen readers as well as newer versions. The
commonly stated theory is that the scripts should degrade gracefully,
but most screen reader users use their browser with scripting on, but
there are substantial difficulties in dealing with the information
created or modified with scripts. Creating a noscript version is a nice
idea, but in practice doesn't work. Noscript content is not read by
JAWS, which alone make the strategy questionable, but when the web
application makes effective use of javascript it may be that the
solution for users without scripting is a multiple page equivalent that
covers the same ground that the script-enabled app does.
AWK
________________________________
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Schuffman,
Jan (General Services - ADA)
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:20 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Accessible Flash
(Long-time list serv lurker here, seldom poster) My $.02 - I
agree with Leonie. Yes, it's possible to build accessible Flash and yes,
the more modern versions of the industry-standard screen readers can
then render it, but those screen readers can be phenomenally expensive,
and many users' financial situations preclude even upgrading. JAWS,
industry-standard in screen readers, costs as much as $600 just for an
upgrade and $900-1100 for a full install, so many people will use their
legacy versions until they are completely non-functional.
The time will come when most of the visitors who use screen
readers will have software that plays nice with Flash. Till then,
though, my party line continues to be to avoid Flash or, if it must be
used, to make sure a visitor has a chance to opt out of it for an
accessible page before the Flash begins.
Note that this is different from having Flash auto-start if a
player is detected on a computer. A couple who are friends of mine now
have two computers but before they did, it was rough. "He" is 100% blind
and uses JAWS. "She" is not, and enjoys Flash. Whenever he was online
and encountered Flash with an auto-detect and auto-start, he was stuck,
since she had loaded a Flash player on their shared computer. Much
better to ask the user which he/she prefers - the Flash or non-Flash
version of a page.