phranque
msg:4100225 | 10:50 am on Mar 18, 2010 (gmt 0) |
noscript is accessible and safe and is actually the suggested method by google.
even better, i would suggest using swfobject [code.google.com] which, if implemented properly, will support <noscript> to handle javascript-disabled or -unabled user agents including search engines and provide alternate content for flash-disabled browsers while handling all the browser and flash version coding issues.
|
jastra
msg:4100278 | 12:19 pm on Mar 18, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Thanks phranque. Perfect.
|
ergophobe
msg:4102652 | 9:56 pm on Mar 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
I don't have phranque's expertise, but I will simply say that using swfobject made integrating a swf audio/video player relatively simple and reliable.
|
jastra
msg:4102704 | 11:00 pm on Mar 22, 2010 (gmt 0) |
We're going to use that method. Until now, I thought <noscript> was the only option. Thanks.
|
phranque
msg:4102774 | 2:24 am on Mar 23, 2010 (gmt 0) |
as the search engines get better at indexing flash content it will be interesting to see how they treat the alternate and/or noscript content when you are using the swfobject solution.
|
jastra
msg:4102936 | 11:37 am on Mar 23, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Do you mean that the search engines may grow to consider it suspect, a potential for shenanigans, as perhaps with hidden CSS?
|
|
