Flash and Accessibility

Mike,

Nice debut post.

I think that you’ve brought up some good key points there. I believe that a lot of standardistas simply dismiss Flash as an option and don’t try to come up with as many accessible techniques using Flash as perhaps they should. I’m guilty of dismissing Flash without trying its accessibility features.

While I doubt that the ‘Make Accessible’ button would actually provide a massive help towards some less able users (correct me if I’m wrong flash/access gurus) it must have some impact. Flash isn’t going to go away tomorrow so any help towards disabled users on Flash sites is great.

What I would always suggest however is to combine Flash technology with HTML/CSS. A design that is aesthetically pleasing, standards compliant and highly accessible can be created in this way. This example is better than any site done completely in flash in my opinion:

http://web.burza.hr/en/

In conclusion, I think that it is important that standardistas understand what Flash can and can’t do, accessibility-wise. I also think that Flash users in return should try to understand the advantages of HTML/CSS based designs sprinkled with Flash. That way, both parties are a little happier.

Mike,

I forgot to ask. What lengths does Flash go to to make a website accessible?

Sounds interesting Mike. Does Flash attempt to base its accessibility features on the WAI specs or does it use its own interpretations?

I wonder, if this is accessibility-driven, does it make a fall-back site for those without Flash?

Nate,

I agree that the accessibility box in Flash will solve all the issues here. I think Mike (Mike correct me if I’m wrong here) is trying to say that if you do use Flash, you should be aware of this facility. It seems that a lot more accessibility features are on the way. Wouldn’t you agree that if one has to use Flash then one should at least try to make the site accessible?

I’d much prefer to see a hybrid of Flash and HTML/CSS if Flash has to be used.

I am sorry that you have been disappointed. I do think it is important for non-standardistas to write here for fad. I think that if everyone here was pro standards it would be a rather shallow place. Recently we’ve had articles on real accessibility, semantic markup and usability so throwing Flash and opinions from writers who are less standards friendly encourages the debate in my opinion. Our philosophy shows that we want to encourage writers from more than one corner of the web and get debates going.

What do you think, Nate? I’m interested in your disappointment as I wish to keep readers happy. Feel free to feedback if you wish to let me know your thoughts in private.

And it’s worth pointing out that we needn’t just talk about a site being in Flash but rather individual elements, like video. Youtube, Google video, and the link all use Flash imbeds to render clips on outside sites. In little more than a year the video sites have effectively shifted the discussion from “Should we ever use Flash?” to “We have to use Flash–how can we make it as accessible as possible?”

Tor,

I think this is where using HTML/CSS with flash elements comes in handy.

An image with an alt attribute is probably just as accessible as flash with accessibility enabled if I’m reading into this correctly. So a flash element could replace a particular image like a callout without a huge problem.
I love debating accessibility but haven’t got a lot of Flash knowledge to back this one up.

If you want a much more in-depth understanding of how Flash plays in with accessibility and standards, read Web Accessibility from Friends of Ed. This book is packed full of how to develop accessible websites, even when you have no choice but to use flash. This will also give you a better understanding of accessibility as a whole and the different devices used to access a website.

Again, I am not anti-flash. I think it does have it’s place. In fact, if google or youtube tried to use another plugin I probably wouldn’t use some of their services. Their tool of choice is flash, and it is perfect for what they are doing (video, analytics and graphing, etc).

However, just using flash to use flash doesn’t seem justifiable. With over 100 Million websites out there now, can you not see we are past this ‘how can i entice a user to stay on my website’ phase. People are sifting through millions of pages to find information. As soon as you put that roadblock or requirement in front of them, you’ve lost them. This is all said in context of your market (and a good dose of analytics and understanding your users).

Overall, I highly suggest reading the above book - it will give you a much broader and deeper understanding of accessibility (as it relates to flash, pdf, audio, video, javascript, etc).

Thanks for the book recommendation, Nate. I’ve pretty much read all the modern accessibility books but none seem to cover Flash. I’ll go and order this one.

However, just using flash to use flash doesn’t seem justifiable.

This sums my thoughts up on this issue. I still think if one has to use Flash that the accessibility features here can help. It’s better than nothing.

@ Nate

It is not about marketing strategies here but flash and making content accessible in browsers or other devices.

And there are books that explain accessibility in great extent.

just do a search on Amazon for the very word, order the books.

Also @ Nate & Maybe a Few Others:
I don’t understand why all the assumptions are being made on such broad and varying topics. Nate, not all internet users are online researching textual documents, not all websites sell products or engage in marketing. Not all websites cater or need to cater all imparities. Sites that cater movie trailers may not care to cater to visually impaired users therefor programming in accessibility is a waste of time and resources. Also I would like to say that I respect you mind because you are a free thinker but sometime people in the tech world overthink. Don’t be quick to disgard the marketing department because some users want to be WOW’d. They don’t care about the tech specs on a product but may rather like the flash presentation of the products spinning and dancing on it’s head, or something. No one users, or client is more important than the other. This is way the web has many sites serving up the same information but delivering it in very different ways. You may have a very vanilla site with all the pertinent informtion I am looking for but your drab design or lack of wow-ness may be a turnoff, or I may simply be looking for a visual representation without care or concern if the content is XML drivenor can be cached, etc.

RE: Al
With my development of sites, depending on the audience - I don’t make assumptions. I instantly dig in to find out how users are using the site and what is important to them. I worked on a project recently with someone who carries the same mindset as you. He boldly told me that ‘We are going to design for 1024X768, none of our visitors are on 800X600 anymore’,'Our users like the flash, so we are going to keep that - no one is using a 56K modem anymore’, and ‘our users primarily go to X page first, then go to Y’. I actually did the research on the market, as well as tracked with analytics from several methods (google, keywords, raw access and error logs, and custom logs based on activity). Through that, and over a 3 month time period I found that over 21% of the users visiting the site were on 800X600, over 24% were coming through a 56K modem (second to DSL), the page he said that was visited most was number 12 in top content - and lacked substantial traffic. I also found that there was a high exit/bounce rate on the pages that used flash, versus the pages that were static and had more information. So, do I base a website on ‘feelings’ of a developer, or do I base it on solid research and understanding the market/business goals of the company? I’m sorry - but you seem to be the one making the assumptions.

I take the above approach with every site that I work. I make sure that the user’s needs are met first and foremost - not some idea from a designer. I take a simple approach to designing interfaces, and giving people what they are coming for.

You have yet to show me any substantial research or facts based on your thinking. There are many user research reports out there, used in context with your websites reports, metrics, and understanding - and they are just a click away. Reports and findings related to how people find things, what they do when they do find them, etc. The list goes on. I refuse to build websites because I want to ‘wow’ someone, yet see no traffic at all. I would much rather build something that is usable and accessible to all. Just because you want ‘WOW’ doesn’t mean it has to be flash. That is flawed thinking.

It should also be noted that the developer I spoke of earlier is a ‘web designer’ who has done horrible flash in the past. He bases his building on personal opinions and ‘feelings’. He spends hours on a tabled mess of tag soup for clients, only to see 100 visitors in a year if he is lucky (and thats without subtracting bots, repeat visitors, and in-house visits to the site made by the client [IP exclusion]). So tell me, why would I want to take this approach to building a website, and what facts do you have to back up your many assumptions?

I think Nate has some really good points, and I too would like to see some backing with some sites.

[…] Flash isn’t really my thing, but accessibility is. So Mike’s linkdump about Flash and accessibility was good news to hear about: Flash can be more accessible than most people know. Flash, being the only technology with any kind of ubiquity worth developing in, seems to answer so many branding problems but creates so many technical problems that most designer / developers go back to the client and say. “Sorry, there are some things on the internet that do not work…”. […]

> No thank you. I read the previous book because of the Authors of the book - people DIRECTLY associated with accessiblity, screen readers, and standards. I won’t read a random book by random authors who have no real understanding of a topic.

Sorry but I see Amazon or any other website of a publisher with book publications for that matter, as a source of finding info about published books. And I set up a book review section here on fadtastic to review books that not only are about accessibility or CSS development but about designing interfaces, cyberculture, graphic design, and much more. I dont see fadtastic not as a primary source to find more about trends even so.

RE: Mike
Yes, you are correct that you can create accessible flash movies. You can even go as far as defining the order of the page to give it structure. These are all GREAT strides. However, Flash is a tool. Look at the medium. A web browser. Yes, Flash does have a high rate of installation (but this doesn’t account for the differences between versions).

I am not looking at flash as an animation tool. That is the key. Without the animation, what is is that flash can do better than HTML/CSS? The medium is the web browser, you need to get used to the fact that you will never have 100% control of your environment. You need to think about the different instances and your market. For instance, where I work Flash is not pre-installed on our machines that we roll out. Users do not have administrative privileges to install it themselves. Some of our employees may not even know they are missing something, they will just leave the website. What about libraries who have the same type of setup? What about those with slow connection speeds that simply block flash because they don’t want to waste their precious time? Flash developers always make so many assumptions, but it all comes back full circle, in that, I don’t see what they are trying to achieve to be enhanced by using Flash. I think they are just looking for a reason to use it - because its ‘Flash’. Al showed a perfect example of that with one of the sites he linked to. Please tell me how that enhances a user experience and couldn’t otherwise have been duplicated with HTML/CSS (and the benefits that come with HTML/CSS).

Even down to the desktop, you are making assumptions that the users to your site are power users that WANT applications to be available to them from the web or their desktop. Power users, maybe, but novice or intermediate users will rarely get to that point. THINK ABOUT THE USER. Developers are always trying to impose their technology on the user, instead of making things easier for the user. Why is that? It seems to me that you are missing the biggest point of all: the end user.

To create Flash, professionally, then you need to step it up a notch. You need to understand everything about Flash, its strengths and its weaknesses. All of this in light of your users, their patterns, and their expectations. The flash needs to take into consideration printing, bookmarking, copying/pasting, structure, content, load times, URL structures, building flash properly (loadMovie, using external ActionScript, pulling from a database or FCS). Otherwise, you are just imposing what you think is ‘cool’ on the end user. Research shows that doesn’t always work out so well.

Nate & Tor: The way I developed solesource8a.com, It doesn’t have a fall back but it has the option to skip or proceed to main site at the bottom of the flash movie area. What would you suggest?

RE: Al
“Flash can embed Fonts, HTML/CSS 1.0 can’t. CSS 2.0 can but is not a standard yet (I think).”

And now, tell me how that will affect the usability of a website? There are many methods of IR using CSS/HTML - plenty - so this argument holds no water. Also, CSS2, though not a standard yet, does not have the capability to embed fonts (there have been some creative workarounds though).

So, given that your medium is the web, you want to embed all of your typefaces into flash or an image - just because you want control over everything? That seems to be the case, even with the website you have just linked to. Everything is embedded into an image.

My only advice, step away from Adobe GoLive. Your tag soup only proves my point about not understanding your profession.

I want SOLID answers as to why Flash is NECESSARY and what it can do that CSS/HTML cant.

Care to elaborate or give an example? You do realize the Action Script is simply a ‘branch’ of ECMAScript (Javascript) - customized to environment and UI/Objects within flash? Therefore - anything that ActionScript could supposedly do this way, JavaScript could do the same (they have the same datatypes and constructs). Regardless, I am interested in an example. I have a lynx available to test your example you provide.

“HTML and windows have explicit set controls and are limited to work with screen readers”
Please give any information and citations proving this to be true.

RE: Al
The fact that it is frame based is what brings so many issues into play. These same issues are apparent in AJAX technologies if not done properly (Google does do this properly). If I bookmark a flash movie (as most are built now), it will not take me back to that place in the flash timeline. It will take me to the beginning. Causing more frustration that necessary, and more thought than necessary. It breaks the model of what a ‘bookmark’ is. So, it doesn’t exactly preserve state. To the opposite of your statement, if it’s NOT flash, then it can’t keep state? You might want to tell that to the millions of applications out there running without flash.

Throwing JS into the mix does not make it AJAX. Ever heard of DOM scripting per chance? This method allows you to think progressively, but yet degrade gracefully. It doesn’t break for the user. The enhancements will work for those with Javascript, and the site will function the same without JS. It’s a win-win situation (when built properly).

Again, this isn’t 1994. You can easily build charts and graphs without flash. I have stats programs and e-mail stats programs that would beg to differ with this statement. CSS/HTML only make the process easier than it was before, because you can use less graphics to achieve desired affects. I use PHP/GD for image manipulation, which works for charts and graphs. Im not saying Flash doesn’t do these well - Google Analytics uses Flash for its graphs and they are great (however, they could still be replicated without flash).

Why discard animation? Mostly because of the medium. If you want to learn about history, you WATCH TV. You don’t sit in front of a computer, plop down, then just start watching animations left and right. There is a different context/medium to a TV than there is to a computer. I’m not saying people don’t watch TV/Movies online - but research shows they won’t sit in front of a computer long to do so - they will find some way to transfer that file to a TV or other device much more suitable for watching full length shows.

Unless there is a learning point, or reason to the animation, then yes - its useless. The site you listed as an example shows perfectly how animation is useless. What does any of that beginning have to do with learning about what the site has to offer? Nothing - it’s simply put there because it can be. It’s a waste of time. You are confusing USABLE animation with USELESS animation. There is a difference.

RE: Al
I am not arguing semantics, at all. You use Perl, I use PHP/RoR. Those are both tools that produce the same outcome. Remember, the key word is TOOL. I choose PHP for an array of reasons (coupled with a custom installation of Apache/MySQL/Caching/MVC - I like the performance benchmarks). Each tool has enough flexibility to be abused by people, and that is EXACTLY what I am saying with flash - and exactly what I think you do with Flash. You abuse it, and are not a good person to be arguing to use Flash. Your work doesn’t speak highly of the tool.

You are mixing and matching technologies in a twisted way. Flash vs. Javascript? ActionScript is a branch of JavaScript. Their constructs and datatypes are the same. It is merely an extension used inside of the Flash software.

HTML is the foundation of the web. It was the language used (originally to transfer documents back/forth). It is the root of the web. It was skewed and ruined during the Browser wars between Netscape and IE (the introduction of font tags and other ‘quick fixes’). HTML is about structure (hence the reason you shouldn’t use tables for design). CSS is the presentation layer that can very easily give you a visually aesthetic appearance (see csszengarden.com). Javascript is the behavior layer that can manipulate the DOM (Document Object Model). These three, when used together, have great power - but can also degrade gracefully to be accessible to all. It is the nature of the medium.

Users get a web browser and can now be connected with the rest of the world. With 100 Million sites out there, how do they find just what they are looking for? When they do find it, how can they save it for later? Can they bookmark it? Can they print off a recent picture, recipe, or how-to article? Can they browse with freedom that the browser is THEIRS and they should have control of that environment? The abuse of Flash has led to it breaking many mental models of users visiting your websites. No back/forward button controls. No bookmarking. No printer friendly versions of what they want. Inhibited use of copy/paste because you want to embed everything into a different font or picture. Longer download times just waiting to see content they are looking for. The inability to use their browser to open links in new tabs/windows. The inability to see where the links inside of the flash movie will be taking them next. The inability to be accessible to all who are trying to find the content. And the list goes on…(Again, due to abuse of the tool). Flash breaks a users mental model of what it means to browse the web and get information.

Let’s not even get to the fact that the majority of people visiting a site will come to it through a search engine. How can they find your oh-so-important content when it is all embedded into flash? Who is to say they are sitting at home in front of their home PC? What if they were at a library, work, or friends house? What if they didn’t have the plugins installed, you have shown you don’t build a fall-back option to it NOT being accessible to someone.

Your trying to justify a designer having pixel perfect control shows me you know very little about design. If you were a true designer, you would understand the medium present and how to best communicate within that medium. Not try and bend the medium to fit what you want it to say (or trying to shake, move, resize, change color, force music upon, etc).

So, individually, even without CSS or Javascript, HTML can disseminate information ten times better than any embedded flash movie ever could. HTML lets the user keep control of the reigns, and understands that users are not coming to be entertained - they are seeking information. Even if they are seeking to be entertained (like YouTube), they may still be multi-tasking or doing other things. This doesn’t give you the right to try and justify what you think is the best experience for them. The browser is still theirs. Stop trying to impose your technology on the user, and let them USE it.

Jon,

I agree. It would be nice to find out what accessibility criteria Flash uses to make a flash file accessible.

Johan - definately food for thought but that relies on JavaScript…
Which unfortunately is another accessibility feature that cannot be relied
upon! :-(