Flash and Accessibility

[SEFL]

Since I know there's at least one person on this board that has forgotten more than I know about accessibility (and that's a pretty fair amount), I'm going to throw this question out here.

Is there any documentation concerning Flash and accessibility (e.g. mouseovers, keystroke alternatives like in Javascript, etc.)? I haven't seen any, and to the best of my knowledge they don't exist in Flash...or do they?

Also, is it possible to create a percentage to resize text in Flash? To the best of my knowledge, it isn't, but if it is, I figured this would be the place to ask.

Thanks...and let's have us a nice old-fashioned think tank.

[WebSavvy]

Adam, I don't really do much work with Flash, but since editable flash can hold HTML values, I imagine that it's possible to set % values or em(s) for font sizes, providing there's a base font size set in the body tag via external CSS.

If you're using XHTML, as you know, flash won't validate. Therefore you need to use a js preloader to get the flash file, and this does validate.

If you need a js preloader for flash, I have one and can send you the file if you tell me where to send it?

In a js file you can set tabindex on any links in the js so I imagine the same can be done in editable flash.

I could be wrong, however, as I said -- I don't work with flash at all.

[SEFL]

Actually, flash will validate with XHTML, although it throws an intermittent error with IE6 from my experience with it. So I'm not worried about it from that standpoint.

I've only ever seen font sizes in terms of pixels, though...so that's why I'm not sure.

[WebSavvy]

WebAIM Creating Accessible Flash Content (http://www.webaim.org/techniques/flash/)

[ihelpyou]

Well, reading that page and I read this paragraph:
Although each of these strategies can increase accessibility, Flash content is rarely designed to include all of these strategies at the same time, thus making it inaccessible in some way. When all accessibility techniques are applied to Flash, it can be universally accessible, perhaps even more so than HTML, because the need for specific assistive technologies (with their accompanying limitations) is removed. However, such an endeavor would be difficult or even impossible with a majority of Flash content. In short, unless all of the accessibility techniques are applied, Flash may not be accessible.

[WebSavvy]

Yes, I read that too. However, as stated, if all the accessibility techniques and approaches are applied, Flash can be web accessible.

That's not the biggest hurdle though. Most people that rely on screen readers normally aren't going to access flash media in the first place -- about the same holds true with regard to accessible pdf files.

I loathe pdf, and really tend to avoid flash when possible.

Accessibility is about using the most mainstream content delivery methods possible and making those methods as accessible as possible.

Mainstream content delivery, IMO, always means HTML because it has a higher percentage rate for reaching the highest level goals in web accessibility.

Mediums like Flash, PDF, and JavaScript, still leave a lot to be desired. Ajax has too many problems ... so I won't even go there.

[ihelpyou]

Yeah, as long as "ALL" techniques are applied to the flash, but the majority of flash could never be accessible as not all the techniques can be applied to it.

Deb; you will never do away with all those things you mention. If anything, more and more of these are going to come about... not less. People do not want to go backwards in development. They always want to come up with more and more creative ways to develop content, etc, which many times leaves out total accessbility. It's just a fact is all.

[WebSavvy]

Yes, I understand that.

I like to use newer technology on my site too, and at the same time also strive to meet accessibility levels. It's not an easy balance, I can tell you.

The new WCAG 2.0 (Draft) Guidelines, stink -- too. I found this "validator" that tests your site against the 2.0 draft and even if the site is currently Triple-A conformance by the current standards, it won't even pass level A in the new draft.

On a "What's New" page, wouldn't you expect the title of the page to be "What's New?"

Using the "validator" with the 2.0 draft, a page that IS a "what's new" page, using a "What's New" meta title, FAILS because it says "The title may not be appropriate for the page."

Yep, now the new draft even wants to tell you what your meta titles can and cannot be, and if testing a page for accessibility, can FAIL you on it simply if the automated process doesn't get the warm fuzzies about your choice of metas.

There are a lot of people moaning about the new 2.0 draft because it's making web accessibility harder, not easier.

Leave it to a bunch of sighted people to decide what blind people need, and it'll be a mess every time. If they'd just ask the blind, and listen to them, perhaps the blind might actually have sites that are accessible to them. Same goes with people that suffer from mobility problems.