Stephen Stagg wrote:
Jared Smith wrote:
Felicity Farr wrote:
I love the attitude of the big players...provide a text alternative and
it's instantly accessible.
...
I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like using a text-only page as an
excuse for otherwise inaccessible content is a violation.
I'm no expert, but I thought that Flash WAS inaccessible and therefore
when designing a flash-based site, compliance cannot be accomplished in
any other way BUT by having a text alternative.
It's necessary to have alternative content, but there is no reason for
the alternative content to be nothing more than plain text. Good
alternative content to flash would include relevant images, videos,
audio, etc. Each of those should then also have appropriate alternate
content. It should be built to look something like this diagram:
______________Flash______________
/ | | \
_Video_ Text Audio Images
/ \ | (PNG, GIF, SVG, etc.)
/ \ | |
Images Text Text Text
| (captions/subtitles) (transcript)
|
Text
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
