E-mail List Archives
Thread: Flashy dilemma
Number of posts in this thread: 18 (In chronological order)
From: Glenda
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2005 4:33PM
Subject: Flashy dilemma
No previous message | Next message →
I am in the midst of conducting a Web accessibility audit for
www.neilsquire.ca (finally). I haven't worked with Flash before. Is there
any way to make the revolving series of pictures more accessible (and less
annoying)? Personally I would like to suggest a series of static images
instead, but that may simply be personal taste.
I also welcome other feedback. I am trying to convince them that, with
appropriate changes, a text-only site is not necessary -- their idea, not
mine! They want a professional site to appeal to potential donors and seem
to think that means sacrificing accessibility. Will people ever get it???
Cheers,
Glenda
Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.eaglecom.bc.ca
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/05
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2005 4:38PM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
>I am in the midst of conducting a Web accessibility audit for
>> www.neilsquire.ca (finally). I haven't worked with Flash before. Is there
>> any way to make the revolving series of pictures more accessible (and less
>> annoying)? Personally I would like to suggest a series of static images
>> instead, but that may simply be personal taste.
To make it accessible at least to the guidelines you'd need an option
to allow the user to stop the animation. That is pretty easy in flash.
Furthermore you need a non-Flash replacement. As the images are pretty
much screen furniture only, a static image with a proper alt text
inside the OBJECT tag should do the trick.
>> I also welcome other feedback. I am trying to convince them that, with
>> appropriate changes, a text-only site is not necessary -- their idea, not
>> mine! They want a professional site to appeal to potential donors and seem
>> to think that means sacrificing accessibility. Will people ever get it???
Actually a text only site is hardly ever needed, as you can do that
with appropriate style sheets. An extra page is ghettoing users and
might not be used just for that reason.
What would need to be done is to make the HTML structure a lot easier
- out with the nested tables, in with clean and mean code.
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Chris Price
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2005 5:22PM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
On 12/4/05 11:33 pm, "Glenda" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> I am in the midst of conducting a Web accessibility audit for
>> www.neilsquire.ca (finally). I haven't worked with Flash before. Is there
>> any way to make the revolving series of pictures more accessible (and less
>> annoying)? Personally I would like to suggest a series of static images
>> instead, but that may simply be personal taste.
Those scrolling images are totally distracting and counter productive and do
not communicate the message of the site. I would certainly go for images
that stay where they are and any animation should cease a few seconds after
the site has loaded.
The Flash movie doesn't appear to be functional so I don't see an
accessibility issue as long as the message is reflected in the text.
Personally, I think unless the Flash content can be employed more
imaginatively the site would be better off without it.
-- Chris Price Choctaw = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = http://www.choctaw.co.uk
From: M Catlett
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2005 10:12PM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
Aside from the Flash content...
That top banner (tagline.gif) doesn't seem to have any alt text, and the contrast on the left hand side is a little low with that yellow text on a light blue background. I can see that you gave it a drop shadow but the word "USE" is hard to see.
Now that I look at them, the other four images below have alt tags that say "website content elements" which is not very evocative... you could write a tag that tells what's in the picture.
Hope that helps...
m.
> I am in the midst of conducting a Web accessibility audit for
> www.neilsquire.ca (finally). ...
>
...
From: Glenda
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2005 11:20PM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks. And just to be clear, I DID NOT create this site. I am simply
conducting the audit, months after the fact. I would have created a
totally different and accessible site. {just wanted to save my reputation
there!}
Cheers,
Glenda
Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.eaglecom.bc.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of M Catlett
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:12 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Re: Flashy dilemma
Aside from the Flash content...
That top banner (tagline.gif) doesn't seem to have any alt text, and the
contrast on the left hand side is a little low with that yellow text on
a light blue background. I can see that you gave it a drop shadow but
the word "USE" is hard to see.
Now that I look at them, the other four images below have alt tags that
say "website content elements" which is not very evocative... you could
write a tag that tells what's in the picture.
Hope that helps...
m.
>>I am in the midst of conducting a Web accessibility audit for
>>www.neilsquire.ca (finally). ...
>>
From: Webmaster
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 12:07AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
I have the impression that you published a lot of e-mail addresses in
plain "mailto:" format. You may use something like this (or there are
other more sophisticated techniques):
<a href="mailto:
webmaster@enetplanet.com">webmaster@enetplanet.com</a>
- the e-mail address will still look normal to visitors, but it will
make life a bit more difficult to spammers, who collect e-mail addresses
from pages automatically.
Or are we at the point of eliminating spam completely? If not than it
will save some time to all those people looking through uninvited ads
via e-mail.
Cheers! A.
Glenda wrote:
>> I am in the midst of conducting a Web accessibility audit for
>> www.neilsquire.ca (finally).
...
>> I also welcome other feedback.
From: Webmaster
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 12:16AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
As for me, I like these scrolling images. My opinion - is that it is a
rare occasion when flash animation does something useful. In this case I
could see all those interesting people at once. A.
>> Those scrolling images are totally distracting and counter productive and do
>> not communicate the message of the site.
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 2:05AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
>> Now that I look at them, the other four images below have alt tags that
>> say "website content elements" which is not very evocative... you could
>> write a tag that tells what's in the picture.
>>
Alternative text or "alt attribute". There is no such thing as an "alt tag".
just FYI
-- Chris Heilmann Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com Writing: http://icant.co.uk/ Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 9:15AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
On 4/14/05, Webmaster < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> I have the impression that you published a lot of e-mail addresses in
>> plain "mailto:" format. You may use something like this (or there are
>> other more sophisticated techniques):
>>
>> <a href="mailto:
>> webmaster@enetplanet.com">webmaster@enetplanet.com</a>
>>
>> - the e-mail address will still look normal to visitors, but it will
>> make life a bit more difficult to spammers, who collect e-mail addresses
>> from pages automatically.
It did make their life difficult some years ago, but they are far beyond that.
>> Or are we at the point of eliminating spam completely? If not than it
>> will save some time to all those people looking through uninvited ads
>> via e-mail.
A good spamfilter on the server is the only option - unless you want
to go through an email form instead. Almost every "spam protection
technique" on the client side hurts normal users more than spammers -
especially those using assistive technology.
-- Chris Heilmann Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com Writing: http://icant.co.uk/ Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Webmaster
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 9:27AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree. Though once the spam filter filtered out the e-mail message,
which I was waiting for :o(
It can hurt also a website developer, after people start complaining of
the spam surge. There may be colleagues who understand very little in
problems of the Internet and they may place the blame wrongly. Besides
sorting out spam is also undesirable for people using assistive technology.
brgds A.
Christian Heilmann wrote:
>> On 4/14/05, Webmaster < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>
>>>>I have the impression that you published a lot of e-mail addresses in
>>>>plain "mailto:" format. You may use something like this (or there are
>>>>other more sophisticated techniques):
>>>>
>>>><a href="mailto:
>>>>webmaster@enetplanet.com">webmaster@enetplanet.com</a>
>>>>
>>>>- the e-mail address will still look normal to visitors, but it will
>>>>make life a bit more difficult to spammers, who collect e-mail addresses
>
>>>from pages automatically.
>>
>>
>> It did make their life difficult some years ago, but they are far beyond that.
>>
>>
>
>>>>Or are we at the point of eliminating spam completely? If not than it
>>>>will save some time to all those people looking through uninvited ads
>>>>via e-mail.
>
>>
>>
>> A good spamfilter on the server is the only option - unless you want
>> to go through an email form instead. Almost every "spam protection
>> technique" on the client side hurts normal users more than spammers -
>> especially those using assistive technology.
From: Chris Price
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 9:54AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
On 14/4/05 7:16 am, "Webmaster" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> As for me, I like these scrolling images. My opinion - is that it is a
>> rare occasion when flash animation does something useful. In this case I
>> could see all those interesting people at once. A.
>
>>>> Those scrolling images are totally distracting and counter productive and do
>>>> not communicate the message of the site.
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>> Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
The scrolling images are an accessibility issue in that the distracting
movement pulls your attention away from the text. The page makes me feel
slightly queezy so I find it inaccessible.
Used well, Flash can be very effective and Macromedia have put a lot of time
into making it more accessible. The use of Flash on this site just
demonstrates lack of imagination.
-- Chris Price Choctaw = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = http://www.choctaw.co.uk
From: Josh O Connor
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 10:10AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
Chris Price wrote:
> On 14/4/05 7:16 am, "Webmaster" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>
>
>> As for me, I like these scrolling images. My opinion - is that it is a
>> rare occasion when flash animation does something useful. In this case I
>> could see all those interesting people at once. A.
>>
>>
>>> Those scrolling images are totally distracting and counter productive and do
>>> not communicate the message of the site.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>> Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>>
>
>
> The scrolling images are an accessibility issue in that the distracting
> movement pulls your attention away from the text. The page makes me feel
> slightly queezy so I find it inaccessible.
>
> Used well, Flash can be very effective and Macromedia have put a lot of time
> into making it more accessible. The use of Flash on this site just
> demonstrates lack of imagination.
>
>
>
I agree with Chris. Apart from any access issues the animation gives me a feeling like I'll fall over if I
look at it for too long and kind of distracts me from what is on the rest of the site. If it has to be there
maybe make it smaller and less of a dominant feature.
Josh O Connor
Web Accessibility Consultant
*Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)*
National Council for the Blind of Ireland
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 11:51AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
Does this nausea-inducing animation also fail in that it has no text
equivalent?
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of joshue.oconnor
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:10 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Flashy dilemma
Chris Price wrote:
>>
>>
I agree with Chris. Apart from any access issues the animation gives me
a feeling like I'll fall over if I
look at it for too long and kind of distracts me from what is on the
rest of the site. If it has to be there
maybe make it smaller and less of a dominant feature.
Josh O Connor
Web Accessibility Consultant
*Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)*
National Council for the Blind of Ireland
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 4:30PM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
joshue.oconnor wrote:
> I agree with Chris. Apart from any access issues the animation gives me a feeling like I'll fall over if I
> look at it for too long
Couldn't agree more. For what it's worth, I'd opt for a static, very slow and tasteful fading/transition instead.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re
From: Chris Price
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2005 4:57PM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
On 14/4/05 6:51 pm, "Glenda" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Does this nausea-inducing animation also fail in that it has no text
>> equivalent?
>>
>> Glenda
I think there are 2 issues here.
1. If I use images as a substitute for text, such as with buttons, then a
text equivalent is essential. If I am using an image to reinforce a message
then maybe I don't need a text equivalent because it would just be
repetition. But an empty alt attribute is required so the image can be
ignored.
2. The animation here doesn't follow the flow of information. It is where it
is for the benefit of those who can see it. If an explanation is required,
of who the people are in the animation, then I would like to read it as well
and I would like that information to be static because moving information is
difficult to assimilate.
A page fails on accessibility if the information is inaccessible. If, at any
point, there is no relevant information then access is not necessary.
It may sound strange but I think its like having an alternate menu for
vegans. If breakfast is bacon, sausages and egg, the vegan equivalent
doesn't need to look, smell or taste similar or have the same number of
items, but with no animal content. It just needs to be as tasty, nutritious
and filling (and probably healthier).
-- Chris Price Choctaw = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = http://www.choctaw.co.uk
From: Glenda
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2005 3:30AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Dimitris,
I have mentioned the "Click here" issue in my report. I like how you
explain it in such detail.
I am putting the finishing touches on my report right now. I figure if I
convince the client to not go the text-only version route AND to
rework/remove the Flash feature, then I have succeeded with this client.
Thanks to all for your input.
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Dimitris Grammenos
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:57 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Flashy dilemma
Hi Glenda,
Another usability (but not accessibility) problem of the homepage are the 2
links that start with "Click here..."
Anyone who has used hypertext just once knows that blue underlined text is
something that "affords" clicking (i.e., that can be clicked). Also a person
who listens to the page (e.g., using a screen reader) will listen that this
is a link.
Thus, the words "click here" are already "embedded" in the semantics of the
interaction object (i.e., the link) and do not have to be repeated, since
they create unnecessary visual (and acoustic) clutter. As an extreme
example, imagine a keyboard that each key is labeled as: "Press this key to
type A", "Press this key to type B", etc.
The link text should just describe the link's destination (i.e., where the
user will be transferred upon clicking the link).
Additionally, from another point of view, "click here" is not a politically
correct term, since there are many users who may not be using a mouse to
"select" the link :-)
Dimitris
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Glenda
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:52 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Flashy dilemma
Does this nausea-inducing animation also fail in that it has no text
equivalent?
Glenda
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2005 3:36AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | Next message →
Another thing about "click here" is that assistive technology also
offers lists of headlines and links as alternative navigation. And a
"click here" does not make sense in this context.
A great simulator for these things is fangs:
http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2004/11/22/8-fangs-release-05
I started to copy and paste the output into reports to prove that
wording is bad.
On 4/15/05, Glenda < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Thanks Dimitris,
>>
>> I have mentioned the "Click here" issue in my report. I like how you
>> explain it in such detail.
>>
>> I am putting the finishing touches on my report right now. I figure if I
>> convince the client to not go the text-only version route AND to
>> rework/remove the Flash feature, then I have succeeded with this client.
>>
>> Thanks to all for your input.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Glenda
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Dimitris Grammenos
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:57 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'WebAIM Discussion List'
>> Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Flashy dilemma
>>
>> Hi Glenda,
>>
>> Another usability (but not accessibility) problem of the homepage are the 2
>> links that start with "Click here..."
>>
>> Anyone who has used hypertext just once knows that blue underlined text is
>> something that "affords" clicking (i.e., that can be clicked). Also a person
>> who listens to the page (e.g., using a screen reader) will listen that this
>> is a link.
>>
>> Thus, the words "click here" are already "embedded" in the semantics of the
>> interaction object (i.e., the link) and do not have to be repeated, since
>> they create unnecessary visual (and acoustic) clutter. As an extreme
>> example, imagine a keyboard that each key is labeled as: "Press this key to
>> type A", "Press this key to type B", etc.
>>
>> The link text should just describe the link's destination (i.e., where the
>> user will be transferred upon clicking the link).
>>
>> Additionally, from another point of view, "click here" is not a politically
>> correct term, since there are many users who may not be using a mouse to
>> "select" the link :-)
>>
>> Dimitris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Glenda
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:52 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List
>> Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Flashy dilemma
>>
>> Does this nausea-inducing animation also fail in that it has no text
>> equivalent?
>>
>> Glenda
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>> Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 4/14/05
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 4/14/05
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>> Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
-- Chris Heilmann Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com Writing: http://icant.co.uk/ Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Dimitris Grammenos
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2005 3:56AM
Subject: Re: Flashy dilemma
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Glenda,
Another usability (but not accessibility) problem of the homepage are the 2
links that start with "Click here..."
Anyone who has used hypertext just once knows that blue underlined text is
something that "affords" clicking (i.e., that can be clicked). Also a person
who listens to the page (e.g., using a screen reader) will listen that this
is a link.
Thus, the words "click here" are already "embedded" in the semantics of the
interaction object (i.e., the link) and do not have to be repeated, since
they create unnecessary visual (and acoustic) clutter. As an extreme
example, imagine a keyboard that each key is labeled as: "Press this key to
type A", "Press this key to type B", etc.
The link text should just describe the link's destination (i.e., where the
user will be transferred upon clicking the link).
Additionally, from another point of view, "click here" is not a politically
correct term, since there are many users who may not be using a mouse to
"select" the link :-)
Dimitris
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Glenda
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:52 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Flashy dilemma
Does this nausea-inducing animation also fail in that it has no text
equivalent?
Glenda