Hello Everyone, I would appreciate any comments, suggestions, advice, on how to create podcasts to deliver through the BlackBoard flexible learning system. I am interested in know what equipment, software, etc you consider the most user-friendly. Thank you in advance janette
I disagree. Adobe has put millions of dollars with good effect into making Acrobat and Flash accessible, and you can certainly build a Flash site that is compliant with any WCAG priority level. I don't particularly promote Flash for Web content or navigation, but to say or imply that it hinders accessibility is wrong. Cary Gordon, MLS The Cherry Hill Company http://www.chillco.com On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Chris Alhambra wrote: > David, > > I don't know about Canada, but in the the US, there is the Section > 508 of > the Disability Act that requires government websites to be > accessible to > people with disabilities. Flash-based navigation and Flash-based > web pages > often (but not always) become big obstacles to accessibility. > > While I will not go so far as to say that websites should not use > Adobe's > Flash technology (which, when done right, can do some amazing > stuff), I > think most text-based content can be rendered without resorting to > Flash. > Using web standard HMTL with CSS can go a long way to complying with > Section(Continue reading)
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 01:09:32PM -0400, David McDonald wrote: > However, most of the complaints he had were dealing with > accessibility. I don't get this. Is accessibility not important? > He states: "There is no need to use Flash, HTML can to the job." When HTML (or XHTML and the like) can do the job, it should do the job. It's the KISS principle. Also, Jakob Nielsen has some comments to say about Flash that might be worth reviewing. Specifically, the "Break Web Fundamentals" section at the following URL has the best comments about the use (or misuse) of Flash. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html > He then goes on to discuss the proprietary nature of Flash and > that it is not answerable to Canadian law ... blah, blah, blah. I don't know anything about Canadian law, but Flash is proprietary and some people do have moral issues using proprietary software, including me. Now, I don't wish to start a debate about the Free Software movement on Web4lib, because if you're against it, that's fine, I don't care, but I do consider "blah, blah, blah" to be rather trollish. > In my opinion, Flash should not be considered something(Continue reading)
Dear Web4Libbers: > My questions to the group are: > To what extent do you believe that we should cater to patrons who may not have the latest and greatest hardware and software? Do we need to kowtow to the lowest common denominator? Should we include alternative pages that require no downloads? I know we answered this question very well, but it isn't just the "lowest denominator" anymore is it? What about mobile devices? I admit, I haven't had a recent cell phone or PSP or PMP or Blackberry/iPhone (but will soon! :D), but what are Flash/AJAX compatibilities with newer tech? I know mobile device versions of sites can be created, but do these devices have Flash or Javascript support? PS We have a very stripped down browser here (Army library) that doesn't even work correctly with Google Maps. I imagine Flash is completely out of the question. :P -- -- In peace, Amy M. Drayer Web and Systems Librarian amostrom@... http://www.puzumaki.com
I have seen some mobile devices which support some flash, but do not support having 2 windows open. There goes our OpenURL resolver, which is configured to open in a different window from the default. Unless the browser will convert that to open in the same - and the ones I have seen so far won't. Loads of fun. -Edward At 8:39 AM +0100 2/1/08, Amy Drayer wrote: >I know we answered this question very well, but it isn't just the >"lowest denominator" anymore is it? What about mobile devices? I >admit, I haven't had a recent cell phone or PSP or PMP or >Blackberry/iPhone (but will soon! :D), but what are Flash/AJAX >compatibilities with newer tech? I know mobile device versions of >sites can be created, but do these devices have Flash or Javascript >support? -- -- Edward F Spodick, Information Technology Manager Hong Kong University of Science & Technology Library lbspodic@... tel:852-2358-6743 fax:852-2358-1043
> Also, Jakob Nielsen has some comments to say about Flash that > might be worth reviewing. Specifically, the "Break Web > Fundamentals" section at the following URL has the best comments > about the use (or misuse) of Flash. > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html Other interesting arguments aside, Jakob Nielsen stopped being my gold standard for usability some time ago. His website has improved a little (someone apparently finally convinced him that letting text flow margin to margin makes it excruciatingly difficult to read, as well as ugly) but it's very hard to take anyone seriously whose website looks so 1995. He argues for his "scaled-back design" but misses the point that a site can be simple and spare and yet elegant. The emotional temperature of his site is pre-Glasnost USSR, and its functionality is back there with my Commodore Colt. It's also possible to believe strongly in interoperability and yet have a more conditional approach to "standards." In fact sometimes the latter get in the way of the former-q.v. NCIP. K.G. Schneider kgs@...
Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your input. I must say that your comments have changed my opinion quite a bit on this topic. The flash object in question is a historical timeline - with 16 years on it and growing. I am going to recommend that we add a link to a page with straight html links so that all users can have equal access. Furthermore, I am going to recommend that any other pages with images requiring plugins to view the content have alternative links added as well that will render the historical documents in PDF. Thank you for your comments and for putting me back on the right track. Cheers David S. McDonald Systems and Library Technology Manager Nova Scotia Legislative Library P.O. Box 396, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2P8 (902)424-5658 Fax (902) 424-0220 mcdonads@... >>> Edward Spodick <lbspodic@...> 2008-02-01 4:17 AM >>> I have seen some mobile devices which support some flash, but do not support having 2 windows open.(Continue reading)
David McDonald writes: > Dear Colleagues, > > Thank you for your input. > > I must say that your comments have changed my opinion quite a bit > on this topic. I think that is an all-time first for the entire InternetSeriously, that's great. I hope your users appreciate it! _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@...> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "Do you WAAAAANT to come back to my place, bouncy-bouncy?" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus.
On Feb 1, 2008 12:48 AM, Cary Gordon <listuser@...> wrote: > I disagree. Adobe has put millions of dollars with good effect into > making Acrobat and Flash accessible, and you can certainly build a > Flash site that is compliant with any WCAG priority level. I don't > particularly promote Flash for Web content or navigation, but to say > or imply that it hinders accessibility is wrong. > > Cary Gordon, MLS > The Cherry Hill Company > http://www.chillco.com > > I was responding to the original post about the use of Flash and not providing HTML-only equivalents. In that case, the Flash-only pages are indeed obstacles to accessibility. But, OK, hooray for Adobe's spending millions to make its expensive technology accessible. [I'm not even going to comment on the industry that has grown around Section 508.] I don't doubt that Flash can be made accessible, but making it accessible requires a good Flash designer who cares about accessibility. Often times, I don't see this happening. So, main obstacle: Making Flash accessible is not easy. Sometimes, having to provide alternative html pages is "double work" for the same content. Can many cash-strapped (and "time-constrained") libraries really afford to think that's a trivial matter?(Continue reading)
At 09:57 AM 2/1/2008, Chris Alhambra wrote: >On Feb 1, 2008 12:48 AM, Cary Gordon <listuser@...> wrote: > > > I disagree. Adobe has put millions of dollars with good effect into > > making Acrobat and Flash accessible, and you can certainly build a > > Flash site that is compliant with any WCAG priority level. I don't > > particularly promote Flash for Web content or navigation, but to say > > or imply that it hinders accessibility is wrong. > > > > Cary Gordon, MLS > > The Cherry Hill Company > > http://www.chillco.com > > > > > >I was responding to the original post about the use of Flash and not >providing HTML-only equivalents. In that case, the Flash-only pages are >indeed obstacles to accessibility. > >But, OK, hooray for Adobe's spending millions to make its expensive >technology accessible. [I'm not even going to comment on the industry that >has grown around Section 508.] Okay, then I will. As I see it, the industry primarily revolves around lots of tools which tell developers "you are not Section 508 compliant" and there are lots of people that will be eager to point out web site accessibility issues.(Continue reading)
RSS Feed24 | |
|---|---|
212 | |
116 | |
240 | |
40 | |
64 | |
106 | |
59 | |
91 | |
95 | |
106 | |
127 | |
130 | |
190 | |
86 | |
136 | |
129 | |
111 | |
153 | |
128 | |
149 | |
118 | |
159 | |
180 | |
231 | |
232 | |
102 | |
142 | |
231 | |
271 | |
135 | |
197 | |
155 | |
156 | |
158 | |
215 | |
135 | |
115 | |
108 | |
122 | |
136 | |
165 | |
140 | |
333 | |
227 | |
146 | |
178 | |
198 | |
369 | |
269 | |
246 | |
345 | |
304 | |
278 | |
285 | |
386 | |
336 | |
400 | |
285 | |
297 | |
331 | |
280 | |
177 | |
287 | |
272 | |
290 | |
358 | |
280 | |
246 | |
243 | |
318 | |
142 | |
158 | |
227 | |
342 | |
295 | |
372 | |
227 | |
248 | |
452 | |
227 | |
376 | |
261 | |
279 | |
431 | |
339 | |
261 | |
110 |
