Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
a lot of you would be interested.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> a lot of you would be interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4

Time to drag every page over to http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp then.

Phil Payne wrote:
> > Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> > a lot of you would be interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
>
> Time to drag every page over to http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp then.
Yes, I have been doing that with my own sites for quite some time.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Chaddy2222 wrote:
> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> a lot of you would be interested.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>

OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
w3 must be having something.

Are alt and title tags enough? Or something more is needed?

Given the number of bugs in IE, are there disability related bugs in IE?
If yes, how about a lawsuit on IE for not rendering these
disabled-accessibility features properly?

Animesh K <animesh1978 [at] gmail.com> wrote in news:fe3chb$2or0$2
[at] agate.berkeley.edu:

> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
>> a lot of you would be interested.
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
>> --
>> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>>
>
> OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I
presume
> w3 must be having something.

A quick Googling could have answered that question. ;-)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/

Another good source for into: http://www.webaim.org

>
> Are alt and title tags enough? Or something more is needed?

Not even close.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

> Given the number of bugs in IE, are there disability related bugs in
IE?

The "bugs" most often encountered in IE most often have to do with
security and support for web standards. The interface to IE is actually
pretty accessible.

> If yes, how about a lawsuit on IE for not rendering these
> disabled-accessibility features properly?

User agent manufacturers are not to blame for accessibility problems
created by web authors.

Generally speaking, the software on the user's computer will be far more
accessible than the content they encounter on the Web. That's not to say
that desktop software is immune to accessibility problems, but rather
that accessible software is far easier to come by than accessible
websites.


--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K <animesh1978 [at] gmail.com>
wrote:

>OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
>w3 must be having something.

You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
pitiful.

The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/

In article <mhjag313qv2bgeosk322d9083maov83v6d [at] 4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat [at] codesmiths.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K <animesh1978 [at] gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
> >w3 must be having something.
>
> You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
> pitiful.
>
> The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
> book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
> achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/

Good one. Out of the many positive things which speak for
themselves, I was reminded of something that is an irritating
design fault, which this url is a very very mild case of. It is
tiresome to be having to click next buttons when you want to
simply read a lot of an article on line. It is a mild case
becaiuse to be fair to the designer, he provides a fair chunk.
Sites like How Stuff Work are infuriating in this regard, and
there are many others as bad or worse. I can understand placing
limits for bandwidth where there are a lot of pictures.

Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
limits before user *has* to press buttons. There are some very
useful devices I use to go up and down, scroll wheels, up and
down arrows on keyboard, page up and down buttons. Easier than
the *interruptions* from locating visual buttons and clicking.

At the very least, authors might consider providing a facility
where the whole of an article can be read on line by simple
scrolling. Authors often provide a print version, they might
consider more often providing a "continuous" online version for
those who would like such.

(I have not read the URL here completely, I do not know if author
raises this matter? As I say, his is a very minor irritation, I
might be a little unusual in this regard? But thegeneral point I
make is good.)

--
dorayme

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:28:26 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
>limits before user *has* to press buttons.

Have a read of the JAIC site (Journal of the American Institute for
Conservation). Fascinating content, I wish they had newer stuff on-line
too, and you might like how they've done navigation. Articles are
duplicated: they're up as both page per section, and also a simple
linear format of the whole article as one. HTML too, not PDF !

http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/

In article <iesag31n42e5rfmte4oht6ieal3lmqn9lp [at] 4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat [at] codesmiths.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:28:26 +1000, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
> >limits before user *has* to press buttons.
>
> Have a read of the JAIC site (Journal of the American Institute for
> Conservation). Fascinating content, I wish they had newer stuff on-line
> too, and you might like how they've done navigation. Articles are
> duplicated: they're up as both page per section, and also a simple
> linear format of the whole article as one. HTML too, not PDF !
>
> http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/

Yes, that's the way! An "entire article" button.

--
dorayme

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K <animesh1978 [at] gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
>> w3 must be having something.
>
> You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
> pitiful.
>
> The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
> book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
> achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/

Thanks Andy and Karl! I will look into both the links at leisure. It
sounds like fun to be accessible to a blind without actually talking
with him.

On Oct 4, 11:48 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur... [at] yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> a lot of you would be interested.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_ blind_dc_4

In a strictly legal sense this is really nothing. All it means is
that they will go to trial. But Target will end up losing in the
socialistic courts of California, and we will move one step closer to
a bland vanilla world where there is no incentive to draw with color.

You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
about a second.

Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
end to some of this bullshit.

On Oct 4, 2:54 pm, Karl Groves <k... [at] NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote:
> Not even close.http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

"These guidelines do not discourage content developers from using
images, video, etc., but rather explain how to make multimedia content
more accessible to a wide audience."

"etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.

> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.

Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
more accessible.

A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
Communicators?

And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.

Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
actually disabled on this machine.

I just tried to get an HPI check on a car using a handheld while
standing on a dealer's forecourt. Can't do it - browser NEEDS Flash.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. HPI's business went to Halfords instead.

On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> > "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
> > Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
>
> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
> more accessible.
>
> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
> Communicators?
>
> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>
> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
> actually disabled on this machine.

That's an extremely ignorant statement.

Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
statement.

> That's an extremely ignorant statement.

> Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> statement.

This is from IPSOS over a year ago:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049

"Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
males - typical of many new consumer technologies."

Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.

http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/ - find where it mentions
Flash.

Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
that fools many site creator's clients.

>From the Webmaster Guidelines:

"If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
able to view that content either."

Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
market.

On Oct 5, 9:19 pm, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
> > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > statement.
>
> This is from IPSOS over a year ago:
>
> http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049
>
> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
> at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
> driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
> Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
> longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
> males - typical of many new consumer technologies."
>
> Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
> other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
> overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
> browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
> Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
>
> http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/- find where it mentions
> Flash.
>
> Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
> that fools many site creator's clients.
>
> >From the Webmaster Guidelines:
>
> "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> able to view that content either."
>
> Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
> market.
This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
frequently on their mobile devices.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

On 5 Oct, 12:58, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur... [at] yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> frequently on their mobile devices.

Why? It's already happening in South Africa, and they've got equal
distances, equally low technical-population densities, and far less
money to do it with.

SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
>>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
>> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
>> more accessible.
>>
>> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
>> Communicators?
>>
>> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
>> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
>> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>>
>> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
>> actually disabled on this machine.
>
> That's an extremely ignorant statement.
>
> Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> statement.
>

Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?

What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
to get an updated one.

I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can do
this :-)

Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some things.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex [at] attglobal.net
==================

On Oct 5, 12:19 pm, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
> > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > statement.

> Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
> other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
> overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
> browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
> Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
>
> http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/- find where it mentions
> Flash.
>
> Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
> that fools many site creator's clients.

Statements like this demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the
technology itself.

> "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> able to view that content either."

Search engines are machines. Bits of software. People are emotional,
generally visual creatures, unlike search engine. A search engine
understands text, based on rules. People understand colour, layout,
motion and have emotional responses to these things. I would hope that
designers build sites for people, not for search engines. A search
engine is a means to an end (indexing, accessing a market I suppose),
but once you have that precious visitor on your site that's when
everything else becomes important.

Flash is one way of presenting the sort of Rich Media that enables
these "human" sites; there's nothing evil or irrelvant about Flash -
it's just a tool. Just like HTML, or JPEG images, or AJAX or XML...

Classing Flash as some sort of "bells and whistles" toy though is
really to completely misunderstand the platform that it provides. This
is not that unexpected - Flash has been really abused over the years,
but over the last 18 months has really come into its own. Flash itself
is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an extremely
powerful programming language at its core. It leverage's the kind of
functionality that can only be dreamed of with JS and traditional
HTML.

Here's the caveat though; Like any tool, you select what's best for
the job at hand. Flash is not idea for all projects. Flash generally
is not good for mobile platforms (yet) as they lack the horsepower to
run the full version of Flash. In other words it's better to do it
other ways.

Also, you have to think how people use the WWW; it's a VERY big place,
and there are a lot of differing browsers and technologies. While you
should always make your content available to the largest numbers of
people possible, focusing your projects on particular audiences is far
more effective. In specific markets, Flash has almost 100% penetration
(specifically, younger markets with money to spend), they are more
likely to have Flash enabled, a broadband connection and be impressed/
interested in rich content (video, animation, sound) - think online
magazines, games sites, sites for bands.

So... form over function? If that "form" provides a more relevant
interface to your functionality, writing it off as irrelevant is
seriously restricting the way you communicate with your audience.

You can have the most functional web site on the planet, and it can
fail because of band branding, or poor layout, or a competitor with a
nicer looking site.

It's dangerously naive to think that these things don't matter.

> Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
> market.

BTW.... most smartphones support Flash.

On Oct 5, 12:58 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur... [at] yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:19 pm, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
> > > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > > statement.
>
> > This is from IPSOS over a year ago:
>
> >http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049
>
> > "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
> > have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
> > at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
> > driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
> > Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
> > longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
> > males - typical of many new consumer technologies."
>
> > Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
> > other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
> > overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
> > browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
> > Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
>
> >http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/-find where it mentions
> > Flash.
>
> > Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
> > that fools many site creator's clients.
>
> > >From the Webmaster Guidelines:
>
> > "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> > can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> > remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> > able to view that content either."
>
> > Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
> > market.
>
> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> frequently on their mobile devices.

The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.

On Oct 5, 1:21 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck... [at] attglobal.net> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
> >>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
> >> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
> >> more accessible.
>
> >> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
> >> Communicators?
>
> >> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
> >> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
> >> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>
> >> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
> >> actually disabled on this machine.
>
> > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
>
> > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > statement.
>
> Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?

Apparently!

> What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.

yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.

> also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> to get an updated one.
>
> I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
> sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
> graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can do
> this :-)
>
> Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some things.

Flash is still really abused, but it's coming of age I think. Some of
the things we've seen here (at our studio) over the past year are
really... astonishing. They can totally change the way you behave
online, and make it a much more pleasant & rewarding experience. Flash
is not some great panacea. Give it another year.

Chaddy2222 wrote:
> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> frequently on their mobile devices.

Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.

On Oct 5, 10:58 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> > I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> > frequently on their mobile devices.
>
> Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
> of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
> phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
> to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.
Ahh yes, very true. I think it will be another year or three though
before people start browsing the web on their mobile devices
frequently as the prices will need to come down a bit, a bit like what
happend here in Australia when broadband internet was introduced.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

> > Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?

> Apparently!

(Can we do some more trimming, guys?)

WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
from everything. Now dead.

> > What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.

Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
an unknown technology.

Now you have, e.g., http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/bt_fon_wimax/
where BT lets you use other people's private WiFi routers if you open
up your own - so you can walk down the street with your handheld and
surf. Most of the public house chains in the UK have WiFi - Sheffield
City Council (where I live) has a public system covering hte whole of
the City Centre.

> yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.

Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
Flash Lite.

Why not do it just once?

> > also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> > to get an updated one.

He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.

SpaceGirl wrote:

> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>

??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
undercut text for bandwidth.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Oct 5, 2:18 pm, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:

> WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
> from everything. Now dead.

Yep, because the platform changed. Most modern mobile devices can
render full XHTML, so it became irrelevant.

> > > What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
>
> Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
> an unknown technology.

The world moves on...

> > yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.
>
> Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
> everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
> who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
> this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
> alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
> Flash Lite.

Or build web sites the way they should be build. Your application,
data and UI layers are completely separated so it doesn't matter what
presentation technology you use.

> Why not do it just once?
>
> > > also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> > > to get an updated one.
>
> He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.

So am I (Scotland)... I have a 3G broadband phone and in a few weeks
an iPhone. The networks here in the UK are ahead of the US, for
example.

On Oct 5, 2:31 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... [at] centralva.net> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> > web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> undercut text for bandwidth.

Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
uninteresting.

Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.

SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:31 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... [at] centralva.net> wrote:
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
>>> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
>> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
>> undercut text for bandwidth.
>
> Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
> platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
> for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
> emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
> uninteresting.

I did not say devoid of style. I am say that in no way a "image" of text
will be smaller then text including the CSS styling.

>
> Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
> new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
> contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
> inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
> can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
> header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
> Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
> more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
> lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.
>

5Kb eh? URL?


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 2007-10-05, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam [at] subhuman.net> wrote:
[...]
> Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
> extremely powerful programming language at its core.

Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?

> It leverages the kind of functionality that can only be dreamed of
> with JS and traditional HTML.

Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
SVG?

Travis Newbury wrote:

> You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
> make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
> about a second.
>
> Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
> plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
> leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
> end to some of this bullshit.
>

I won't argue, frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem, and I know this
is anecdotal, but to bolster your point here's a first hand experience
(sans a lot of gory details). After I became disabled, a multinational
did something to me and every other disabled employee that was patently
illegal. When I pursued legal remedy I was told more than once, "they
can't do that, but your case will take lots of work, will not produce
piles of money or big headlines, so we can't help you."

Unfortunately, as with most serious problems, there is no single simple
solution. It's already like a game of table stakes poker, the player
who sits down with the biggest stack of chips has the advantage. I
won't say "unfair" advantage, because I truly believe "fair" is a
subjective term. On the other hand, when juries that think that damage
awards are like winning the lottery, that's part of the problem too.

On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... [at] centralva.net> wrote:

> > Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
> > platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
> > for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
> > emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
> > uninteresting.
>
> I did not say devoid of style. I am say that in no way a "image" of text
> will be smaller then text including the CSS styling.

No different than flash. Okay, so for a web page to render you send
strings of text that contains formatting tags. Flash sends strings of
binary. Same thing, even smaller. Flash doesn't store things as
bitmaps inside itself (unless, they are bitmaps!), they're stored as
instructions to redraw the artwork. Flash is vector based.

> > Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
> > new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
> > contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
> > inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
> > can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
> > header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
> > Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
> > more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
> > lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.
>
> 5Kb eh? URL?

Just install Flash, read about AS3.

On Oct 5, 2:58 pm, Ben C <spams... [at] spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-10-05, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls... [at] subhuman.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
> > extremely powerful programming language at its core.
>
> Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?

In structure yes - meets the same ECMA standards as JS. The language
itself has a lot of depth, supports E4X as well. It's more like Java
than JavaScript to be honest.

> > It leverages the kind of functionality that can only be dreamed of
> > with JS and traditional HTML.
>
> Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
> SVG?

Yes. SVG is VERY bloated. JS also runs about 1/10th speed of Flash,
and lacks all of the video and graphical capabilities. Remember Flash
contains a state of the art video codec, hardware acceleration, can
talk to a video camera and your sound card, your microphone, can embed
fonts, can render HTML, can parse XML... all internally, across most
platforms, without any add-ins. JS doesn't even come close to this.
SVG lacks any of the animation stuff, and generates huge output.
Neither JS or SVG are cross-platform thanks to each browser rendering
pages a little differently. Neither support video or audio. JS has
almost no graphical functions, let alone an awareness of time an
motion. Etc.

We're talking about different creatures here... it's *extremely* hard
to generate these kinds of rich experience, if not bordering on
impossible, with JS.

Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex [at] attglobal.net> wrote in
news:BfOdnWH5jYz8sZvanZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d [at] comcast.com:

> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
>>>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the
>>>> web.
>>> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers
>>> MUCH more accessible.
>>>
>>> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
>>> Communicators?
>>>
>>> And these devices are being used by people in the right
>>> demographics, with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines
>>> for making web sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>>>
>>> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
>>> actually disabled on this machine.
>>
>> That's an extremely ignorant statement.
>>
>> Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
>> fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
>> statement.
>>
>
> Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?
>
> What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
> also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he
> needs to get an updated one.
>
> I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
> sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
> graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can
> do this :-)
>
> Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some
> things.
>

I must've missed a number of these responses, perhaps because I have
Google Groupers blocked.

From my experience, it appears that Flash use for an entire website (UI,
content, the whole thing) has dropped off the face of the earth. The
last time I saw Flash used in that way, it was for some boutique web
design firm, not a real information based website but rather little more
than eye candy.

Instead, I see Flash being used for things like Jerry mentioned:
presentations, Flash video or widgets. I think this is an appropriate
use of Flash in most cases. In these cases, however, Flash is becoming
superceded by its relative: Flex.

--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com

On 5 Oct, 13:41, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls... [at] subhuman.net> wrote:
> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.

Example please.

Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
coders who don't appreciate this.


If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
so bad?

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 5 Oct, 13:41, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls... [at] subhuman.net> wrote:
>> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
>> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
> Example please.
>
> Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
> coders who don't appreciate this.
>
>
> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
> so bad?

because some websites are being designed by someone other than Spacey?

html is also wonderful and easy to produce, and there are millions upon
millions of shitty sites

seriously

a saw in the hands of a carpenter can produce some wonderful results.
put the same tool in the hands of an accountant.

hmm

SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... [at] centralva.net> wrote:

> Just install Flash, read about AS3.
>

What the plugin or the $$$$ development app?

Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Oct 5, 6:07 am, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
> actually disabled on this machine.

You're the exception then.

On Oct 5, 7:19 am, Phil Payne <p... [at] isham-research.co.uk> wrote:
> "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> able to view that content either."

Well, Search engines and Flash play fine together now, and slow
connections have nothing to do with well designed flash. So your
statement shows your ignorance.

But your not alone. There is a lot of Flash ignorance. And I have to
admit, most of the flash out there right now is pretty poor examples
of what flash can do. But as more and more developers start using
Flash (opposed to artists) you will see this changing.

On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... [at] centralva.net> wrote:
> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> undercut text for bandwidth.

And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...

On Oct 5, 9:42 am, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls... [at] subhuman.net> wrote:

> Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
> platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
> for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
> emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
> uninteresting.

I think it comes down to what you want to do with the web. If one
uses the web for research and purchasing something then I can see
where you might want to have a very vanilla mostly text kind of web.
But if you like to have fun on the web, then you might want all the
pizazz. the good thing about the latter is that both types of sites
work for you.

I like pizazz