Forum Moderators: open
2. Is there a way to hide flash animations from browsers that don't support CSS (and screen readers, etc.)?
You can hide flash files (or anything else for that matter) by defining alternate css files depending on the browser
As for hiding with CSS, I know I can set visibility but what if the browser doesn't support CSS at all?
When compressing, flash changes my background color
Have you tried tweaking your compression settings? Your other alternative is to use a colour from the WebSafe colour pallette.
Is there a way to hide flash animations from browsers that don't support CSS (and screen readers, etc.)?
I don't quite understand this - why hide flash from non-CSS compliant browsers? Some may have the Flash plugin and work fine. Most assistive technology is clever enough to ignore <object>'s that it can't render and jsut flag it's presence to the user.
Most browsers support css its more of a question as to how well they support it, and then how well they interpret it. :-)
If someone has a screen reader (as opposed to a text only browser like Lynnx) flash can be set via AS2 and flash player 7 to allow the text content of the movie to be read, provided its specified at compliation.
Have you tried tweaking your compression settings? Your other alternative is to use a colour from the WebSafe colour pallette.
Yeah, I could just compress less but I was hoping there was an alternative. No big deal...for most browsers, it's just transparent and shows the color behind it but for the ones that don't support transparency, I was hoping I could get the color to match.
I don't quite understand this - why hide flash from non-CSS compliant browsers? Some may have the Flash plugin and work fine. Most assistive technology is clever enough to ignore <object>'s that it can't render and jsut flag it's presence to the user.
Because the flash is purely decorational. When GIFs are decorational, it's best to define them as CSS backgrounds so non-CSS compliant browsers don't display them. I was hoping to do something similar with the flash.
Make sense?
Not sure I agree with that, the idea is to provide a text alternative so disabled viewers have an idea what they are missing, not to exclude them from it entirely.
Quote from w3 website
Providing non-text equivalents (e.g., pictures, videos, and pre-recorded audio) of text is also beneficial to some users, especially nonreaders or people who have difficulty reading. In movies or visual presentations, visual action such as body language or other visual cues may not be accompanied by enough audio information to convey the same information. Unless verbal descriptions of this visual information are provided, people who cannot see (or look at) the visual content will not be able to perceive it.
Checkpoints:
1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video. [Priority 1]
For example, in HTML:
* Use "alt" for the IMG, INPUT, and APPLET elements, or provide a text equivalent in the content of the OBJECT and APPLET elements.
* For complex content (e.g., a chart) where the "alt" text does not provide a complete text equivalent, provide an additional description using, for example, "longdesc" with IMG or FRAME, a link inside an OBJECT element, or a description link.
* For image maps, either use the "alt" attribute with AREA, or use the MAP element with A elements (and other text) as content.
