incrediBILL - 3:08 am on May 1, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'd like to revisit this thread from last year and open this topic up for more in depth discussion about the real issues regarding Flash and cloaking:
[webmasterworld.com...]

I run a large directory site and I literally see hundreds of Flash-only sites a week and many of them show the visitor Flash only, just like the previous thread recommends, and shows the HTML to just the search engines.

Here's the real problem with that line of Flash/HTML cloaking philosophy:

* Not all visitors have Flash capabilities on PDAs, cell phones with internet access, etc.

* Flash-only isn't handicapped accessible. Handicapped accessibility is actually required in the EU by law. In America big sites like Target are being sued by the handicapped for having an inaccessible sites.

* Flash requires javascript enabled which many have disabled by default because of security concerns with javascript redirects and injector viruses. Using Firefox plug-ins like NoScript render Flash only sites completely broken on first access. Visitors to my directory often complain about listed sites being broken (blank page) because of this and I have to tell them to enable javascript.

Therefore, not permitting the HTML version of the Flash site to be seen by visitors is potentially costing you or your clients customers and also putting your site at risk for non-compliance with handicap regulations making it a possible target for a lawsuit.

I'm aware that some sites, like photographer sites, use Flash to protect their images from being stolen but at what potential cost?

Your best bet here is to show the visitor both Flash and HTML when javascript is disabled and perhaps cloak only the HTML version to the search engine, but it's really not necessary as the SE will deal the Flash and HTML combo site just fine.

It's not even hard to mix Flash and HTML on a single page:

<script>
Flash code here...
</script>
<noscript>
HTML site starts here...
</noscript>

That way everyone is happy.