bq. In my opinion, flash should always be an option of last resort, when there is simply no other feasible way to achieve one’s goals.
Obviously, I disagree. Flash is a technology, just like XHTML, and should be used where appropriate. If it fits as a solution, it may very well and should be the first option.
bq. sIFR, on the other hand, seems like a legitimate use. It’s something that doesn’t affect the accessibility of the site for those without flash, and does something that can’t really be done well in any other way (you could render an image server-side, but that causes other problems and you lose the accessibility of the text).
If sIFR is a legitimate use, then why isn’t other use of Flash? sIFR didn’t originally launch fully supporting accessibility, but those features were built in retroactively as part of their initiative to make it better. sIFR is a great technique, not only because of what it can do, but because it shows that the features are available in Flash and ready to exploit. It’s the responsibility of the designers and developers to implement them.
“@Anson”:http://www.alistapart.com/comments/semanticflash?page=1#4: That’s certainly one way to do it. They both require a line of Actionscript each, so it’s just a matter of preference.
“@Dannii”:http://www.alistapart.com/comments/semanticflash?page=2#13: Please see “my previous comment about degradation”:http://www.alistapart.com/comments/semanticflash?page=1#2.