[WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay
http://www.blatek.co.uk/blateksatay/ I quite like it, what do you think?
Re: [WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay
I like flash satay method, but you can insert a tag image like this example object type="application/x-shockwave-flash data="" width="400" height="300" param name="movie" value="example.swf" / img src="" width="200" height="100" alt="" / /object so browser that doesn't support flash plug-in, shows the alternative image "noflash.gif" [ http://www.gizax.it/vtre/tutorial.php?valore=2lingua=IT] sorry, but isin italian language :-D cheers Daniel - Original Message - From: Jamie Mason To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:10 AM Subject: [WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay http://www.blatek.co.uk/blateksatay/ I quite like it, what do you think?
Re: [WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay
Hi The idea of the cascading object tag is to place alternate *descriptive* content that reflects the intent of the content the user can't access, rather than a no flash image. HTH James On 7/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so browser that doesn't support flash plug-in, shows the alternative image noflash.gif ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 06:18 -0400, James Ellis wrote: The idea of the cascading object tag is to place alternate *descriptive* content that reflects the intent of the content the user can't access, rather than a no flash image. Is there anything wrong with having an image as an intermediate fallback option (obviously with appropriate ALT text defined)? I'm no expert on using object tags, but I don't see anything wrong provided it's redundant at all levels... but am perfectly happy to be corrected if it's invalid or there are other reasons it's a bad practise... Kind Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (02) 8572-6021 Mobile: 0425 808 469 Multimedia Development Agency E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way. Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the contents of this e-mail. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay
Yes, but if you have flash plug-in, you cannot see alternative image. So, the only reason is that when you don't have flash installed, browser shows you image with alternative description. cheers Daniele http://www.gizax.it - Original Message - From: James Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay Hi The idea of the cascading object tag is to place alternate *descriptive* content that reflects the intent of the content the user can't access, rather than a no flash image. HTH James On 7/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so browser that doesn't support flash plug-in, shows the alternative image noflash.gif ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Improvement on Flash Satay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, but if you have flash plug-in, you cannot see alternative image. So, the only reason is that when you don't have flash installed, browser shows you image with alternative description. But what James is getting at is that from an accessibility and usability point of view, you shouldn't simply put a Sucks to be you...install Flash type image. Some users explicitly don't enabled flash because they can't use it (e.g. some users of older screenreaders, or users with text-only browsers, etc). If the flash is only visual fluff, fine...have a static image there. But if your flash performs a function (for instance it's the main site navigation, all done in flash - a bad idea in any case, as search engines won't be able to follow those links...but I digress), try and replicate the function (in the example above, a STBY type message will be less than useful...instead, the alternate fallback should be a normal set of links to the pages to act as navigation). It all depends on what the flash is for, and if the information/service it provides can be replicated in straight HTML. Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
