Making websites accessible to disabilitied people is good. However, moving information into a visual format and then translating it back into a linear medium seems quite backwards.
Joe, the point is that even though it CAN be done, that does not mean it should. It will be more efficient and just make more sense to keep a seperate formatting process. Different audience, different medium, different tool.
My friend cannot use his legs, yet his car is modified so he can still drive. However, bike designers do not create their bikes with him in mind. So? The transportation industry still delivers him pt A to pt B.
While it is NICE that flash has this capablity, the reality is that generally a more personalized and site specific disabilitied equivilant will be more effective than the garbled feedback from an approach like this. When recording music, we try having the source as direct as possible with a minimal amount of routing points. This sends the signal to a digital converter and then back into analog.
Thought it said preview under the msg box :) What I meant to say at the end was that the approach of using flash for the disabilitied was like sending an analog signal into a digital converter and then back into analog.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
CC
Dreamweaver is a product that I use in building the web, but I find that I need to always modify the code to make it W3C compliant. I want Macromedia to make their products compliant with Section 508.
I think it is not only the company’s responsibility to ensure that compliant code is written for these programs, (as well as other companies’ programs), but it is the users responsiblity to push for changes to be made in order to futher the cause. We need to write to companies like Macromedia, Adobe, etc., and tell them that we want to have our future products, (Dreamweaver, Flash, GoLive, etc.,) accessable to the disabled. We are their CLIENTS, and we keep their companies running. I think they need to be reminded of that fact.
With all respect Leo, you are definitely missing the point.
‘moving information into a visual format and then translating it back into a linear medium seems quite backwards.’
We are not talking about converting an interaction design into a linear narrative – the examples of narrated and closed-captioned rich media were used as examples, screen readers and alternative input devices allow just as much interaction as a standard browser, why should flash get in the way?
The analogy of conversion to and from analogue really only comes up in certain visually dense information media, like charts and maps, the reason we use which is specifically because you cannot really understand the data any other way.
In any event, if you stop thinking of making Praystation accessible as a question of screen-reader access to alt texts, things become more manageable. Flash animations are cinematic and cinema calls for audio description. That, plus alternative texts and all the usual access to interface elements (still imperfect in Flash), will do the trick.
Why not just make web pages, and documents available via the phone? That totally solves accessibility for all types of disabled users who cannot see or use their limbs properly. The deaf still can read on the screen which for most sites, thats all that really is neccessary. My company has a product that lets blind persons listen and navigate books and documents via any telephone using the sound of their voice.
The interaction is still possible, through dhtml, which seems to be more geared for it. The nature of flash goes against mass text display, while hyperlinks and bookmarks are ideal for it.
Can you please explain the why? Why would we make a graphical nav, test it, then go through changing bits and pieces for a text nav, and test it, vs doing 2 seperate designs? Not because of 508 or regulations, but in practice.
I am not arguing nobody should do this, and obviously an html/pdf etc version can be packaged alongside the swf, I am just curious as to why it makes more sense to approach it this way. (Not a couple of advantages, but why it outweighs the other approaches).
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Wyvern
I’m surprised that no one has raised the point that Josh Davis’ work is already very powerfully “described” auditorily.
While I can understand interpreting dance and explaining the movement to a visually impaired viewer I’m not convinced that this is akin to trying to translate the pieces on Praystation. You could write a script to direct the dancers and explain to them how to move, seal it in a time capsule and be fairly confident that the person who opens it up could direct a group to preform something that resembled the original effectively translating the movement into words. Praystation’s scripts are interpreted by the computer and are created with the intent of never achieving the same result twice. Would describing what’s happening in words take away from the soul of the work?
Don’t the haunting works of Shapeshifter and Josh’s own found sounds lend more of an “auditory explanation”—or sympathetic experience—to the visuals than a screen reader could?
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
James Tikalsky
Leo, you mentioned converting something from analog to digital, only to turn around and translate it back to analog. Actually, it’s more like translating it to digial, but keeping the analog available in case anyone wants to use it.
Take a typical film, for example. You start with a script, then create a storyboard, then shoot the raw footage and record the sound, edit everything togther, and then present it, (then have a big party afterward). Someone who is blind might not be able to see the footage you’ve shot, but they sure can listen to the soundtrack and dialog. They could also read the script, or have it read to them. Question is: Will you let them?
There was a great CD-ROM put out years ago by Art Speigleman and Voyager, which was essentially a multimedia version of his comic novel Maus. Instead of replacing the original book, it enhanced it. You could add notes, bookmark pages, listen to audio commentary, view sketches of various panels, and review source materials. It was an amazing work.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to make another swf at that point with full text instead of using basic labels?
It is similar to the img alt tag thing – they are useful while loading a page and on mouse overs, but it is more user friendly to have a unique text only version more specific to the medium rather.
As for the challenge: would that be using built-in usabilty features or creating a full seperate project? In my eye, that is the same thing, with one forcing a handicap of staying within the original media design.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Marchdoe
Unfortunatly when dealing with all the US gov’t it has to be compliant. So I agree with “how would a blind indivdual use photoshop”, or “the analogie of a website being like McDonalds, and McDonalds has access so so should a website”
What is all comes down to when designing for the gov’t, which I do, it has to be compliant with 508. So creativity goes down the drain. Thought of flash are never in my mind. Perhaps in a couple years when the technology catches up with the legislation I will be able to utilize it. But until then it is just basic HTML.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
lenore
What is wrong with basic HTML websites? Have we gotten that far into technology that we cannot accept that creativity and design can also be incredibly simple? The technology doesn’t make the design. I mean, great movies that use amazing CG doesn’t make it a better movie than one that does not. I think we should try to make the web content accessible to as many as possible – this also included reducing the browser-dependent page designs. And while we’re making all these presumptions about what those with various disabilities would like to access on the web, has anyone thought to ask them? I would argue that even though one cannot see does not mean that he or she could not successfully use Photoshop – every visual person definitely cannot use the program. Didn’t we get over segregation years ago? Compliancy to section 508 and making websites accessible does not exclude creativity – it just actually makes you think more and use technology less. I find it an almost welcome change – how many terrible dhtml/flash websites have you seen? I don’t have anything against the technology other than when it stops being accessible or even used in a way that makes it cool for everyone. Numerous Javascript popup windows have killed my taste for personally using Javascript although I appreciate it when others do it well without taxing my user experience.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Sally
If anyone is having trouble using the “Feature Grid” link in the article, try this one http://dynamic.macromedia.com/bin/MM/software/trial/hwswrec.jsp?product=vpat but be prepared to fill in a questionnaire if you can’t/won’t login…
The Macromedia site is of course shockingly inaccessible and the link to the HTML version is buried so well I only found it by accident. Bah.
I just made a flash banner 468×60 and when i tried to publish it into .gif file it comes out over 200Kb to about 600Kb. But the .swf file comes out to about 6Kb.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Brandon Blackmoor
Your problem is that you are using Flash to do what should be done with standard, open formats. Is it text? Use text (HTML or XHTML). Is it a graphic? Use a graphic (PNG or JPEG). Is it interactive? Use a combination of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (aka “DHTML”). Flash is destroying the web one URL at a time, and it’s long past time that we as web developers took a stand and refused to use, view, or recommend it.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
ks
Hi, Is anybody out there know about the Flash captioning tool? I read an article saying that it will be out as a freeware from Macromedia in June but I can’t find anything from Macromedia website.
30 Reader Comments
Back to the Articleleo
I am definitely missing the point.
Making websites accessible to disabilitied people is good. However, moving information into a visual format and then translating it back into a linear medium seems quite backwards.
Joe, the point is that even though it CAN be done, that does not mean it should. It will be more efficient and just make more sense to keep a seperate formatting process. Different audience, different medium, different tool.
My friend cannot use his legs, yet his car is modified so he can still drive. However, bike designers do not create their bikes with him in mind. So? The transportation industry still delivers him pt A to pt B.
While it is NICE that flash has this capablity, the reality is that generally a more personalized and site specific disabilitied equivilant will be more effective than the garbled feedback from an approach like this. When recording music, we try having the source as direct as possible with a minimal amount of routing points. This sends the signal to a digital converter and then back into analog.
leo
Thought it said preview under the msg box :) What I meant to say at the end was that the approach of using flash for the disabilitied was like sending an analog signal into a digital converter and then back into analog.
CC
Dreamweaver is a product that I use in building the web, but I find that I need to always modify the code to make it W3C compliant. I want Macromedia to make their products compliant with Section 508.
I think it is not only the company’s responsibility to ensure that compliant code is written for these programs, (as well as other companies’ programs), but it is the users responsiblity to push for changes to be made in order to futher the cause. We need to write to companies like Macromedia, Adobe, etc., and tell them that we want to have our future products, (Dreamweaver, Flash, GoLive, etc.,) accessable to the disabled. We are their CLIENTS, and we keep their companies running. I think they need to be reminded of that fact.
experience
With all respect Leo, you are definitely missing the point.
‘moving information into a visual format and then translating it back into a linear medium seems quite backwards.’
We are not talking about converting an interaction design into a linear narrative – the examples of narrated and closed-captioned rich media were used as examples, screen readers and alternative input devices allow just as much interaction as a standard browser, why should flash get in the way?
Joe Clark
The analogy of conversion to and from analogue really only comes up in certain visually dense information media, like charts and maps, the reason we use which is specifically because you cannot really understand the data any other way.
In any event, if you stop thinking of making Praystation accessible as a question of screen-reader access to alt texts, things become more manageable. Flash animations are cinematic and cinema calls for audio description. That, plus alternative texts and all the usual access to interface elements (still imperfect in Flash), will do the trick.
Brian Graham
Why not just make web pages, and documents available via the phone? That totally solves accessibility for all types of disabled users who cannot see or use their limbs properly. The deaf still can read on the screen which for most sites, thats all that really is neccessary. My company has a product that lets blind persons listen and navigate books and documents via any telephone using the sound of their voice.
Leo
The interaction is still possible, through dhtml, which seems to be more geared for it. The nature of flash goes against mass text display, while hyperlinks and bookmarks are ideal for it.
Can you please explain the why? Why would we make a graphical nav, test it, then go through changing bits and pieces for a text nav, and test it, vs doing 2 seperate designs? Not because of 508 or regulations, but in practice.
I am not arguing nobody should do this, and obviously an html/pdf etc version can be packaged alongside the swf, I am just curious as to why it makes more sense to approach it this way. (Not a couple of advantages, but why it outweighs the other approaches).
Wyvern
I’m surprised that no one has raised the point that Josh Davis’ work is already very powerfully “described” auditorily.
While I can understand interpreting dance and explaining the movement to a visually impaired viewer I’m not convinced that this is akin to trying to translate the pieces on Praystation. You could write a script to direct the dancers and explain to them how to move, seal it in a time capsule and be fairly confident that the person who opens it up could direct a group to preform something that resembled the original effectively translating the movement into words. Praystation’s scripts are interpreted by the computer and are created with the intent of never achieving the same result twice. Would describing what’s happening in words take away from the soul of the work?
Don’t the haunting works of Shapeshifter and Josh’s own found sounds lend more of an “auditory explanation”—or sympathetic experience—to the visuals than a screen reader could?
Wy
James Tikalsky
Leo, you mentioned converting something from analog to digital, only to turn around and translate it back to analog. Actually, it’s more like translating it to digial, but keeping the analog available in case anyone wants to use it.
Take a typical film, for example. You start with a script, then create a storyboard, then shoot the raw footage and record the sound, edit everything togther, and then present it, (then have a big party afterward). Someone who is blind might not be able to see the footage you’ve shot, but they sure can listen to the soundtrack and dialog. They could also read the script, or have it read to them. Question is: Will you let them?
There was a great CD-ROM put out years ago by Art Speigleman and Voyager, which was essentially a multimedia version of his comic novel Maus. Instead of replacing the original book, it enhanced it. You could add notes, bookmark pages, listen to audio commentary, view sketches of various panels, and review source materials. It was an amazing work.
Leo
Wouldn’t it make more sense to make another swf at that point with full text instead of using basic labels?
It is similar to the img alt tag thing – they are useful while loading a page and on mouse overs, but it is more user friendly to have a unique text only version more specific to the medium rather.
As for the challenge: would that be using built-in usabilty features or creating a full seperate project? In my eye, that is the same thing, with one forcing a handicap of staying within the original media design.
Marchdoe
Unfortunatly when dealing with all the US gov’t it has to be compliant. So I agree with “how would a blind indivdual use photoshop”, or “the analogie of a website being like McDonalds, and McDonalds has access so so should a website”
What is all comes down to when designing for the gov’t, which I do, it has to be compliant with 508. So creativity goes down the drain. Thought of flash are never in my mind. Perhaps in a couple years when the technology catches up with the legislation I will be able to utilize it. But until then it is just basic HTML.
Good Day
lenore
What is wrong with basic HTML websites? Have we gotten that far into technology that we cannot accept that creativity and design can also be incredibly simple? The technology doesn’t make the design. I mean, great movies that use amazing CG doesn’t make it a better movie than one that does not. I think we should try to make the web content accessible to as many as possible – this also included reducing the browser-dependent page designs. And while we’re making all these presumptions about what those with various disabilities would like to access on the web, has anyone thought to ask them? I would argue that even though one cannot see does not mean that he or she could not successfully use Photoshop – every visual person definitely cannot use the program. Didn’t we get over segregation years ago? Compliancy to section 508 and making websites accessible does not exclude creativity – it just actually makes you think more and use technology less. I find it an almost welcome change – how many terrible dhtml/flash websites have you seen? I don’t have anything against the technology other than when it stops being accessible or even used in a way that makes it cool for everyone. Numerous Javascript popup windows have killed my taste for personally using Javascript although I appreciate it when others do it well without taxing my user experience.
OMiranda
I have a qestion.
How can may I make alpha blending and motion tweening a bit more eye catching for a 3 minute animation?
Sally
If anyone is having trouble using the “Feature Grid” link in the article, try this one http://dynamic.macromedia.com/bin/MM/software/trial/hwswrec.jsp?product=vpat but be prepared to fill in a questionnaire if you can’t/won’t login…
The Macromedia site is of course shockingly inaccessible and the link to the HTML version is buried so well I only found it by accident. Bah.
continuex
If anyone know this please let me know!
I just made a flash banner 468×60 and when i tried to publish it into .gif file it comes out over 200Kb to about 600Kb. But the .swf file comes out to about 6Kb.
Can anyone tell me what’s the problem??
Brandon Blackmoor
Your problem is that you are using Flash to do what should be done with standard, open formats. Is it text? Use text (HTML or XHTML). Is it a graphic? Use a graphic (PNG or JPEG). Is it interactive? Use a combination of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (aka “DHTML”). Flash is destroying the web one URL at a time, and it’s long past time that we as web developers took a stand and refused to use, view, or recommend it.
ks
Hi, Is anybody out there know about the Flash captioning tool? I read an article saying that it will be out as a freeware from Macromedia in June but I can’t find anything from Macromedia website.
jasan
code of flash with keyword
byteshift webdesign
Brandon,
ever heard of browser quirks when implementing DHTML?
(there are, even with gen 6/7 browsers.., NN7 is quite ok, NN6 is not!)
Besides, DHTML can’t do what open format SVG can;
as long as SVG is not widely available it’ll be Flash for sophisticated animation, I guess.
Marek
byteshift webdesign
Brandon,
ever heard of browser quirks when implementing DHTML?
(there are, even with gen 6/7 browsers.., NN7 is quite ok, NN6 is not!)
Besides, DHTML can’t do what open format SVG can;
as long as SVG is not widely available it’ll be Flash for sophisticated animation, I guess.
Marek