Is and alternative page for non-flash browsers OK?

Or is it considered cloaking?

[surfgatinho]

I have a client who asked me for advice on a site that needed to be indexed super quick etc. I gave them my advice and they came back with a 100% Flash site - doh!

What I was wondering was whether it was acceptable to use a browser detect and if it isn't IE or Firefox send them to a text version.
I can't see that it's spamming because it is only the same content but presented in a different way.

Is there any possibility I would get penalised for this?

Thanks
Chris

[tedster]

I can't see that it's spamming

The problem is that search engines have no algorithmic way to ensure that the content of the two versions actually matches. And so they are quite likely to disapprove of user agent delivery if they discover it.

How much content are we talking about, and is it all one big Flash file? Then better to simply offer all users, bots and brosers, a link to the non-Flash content. The html content can then be indexed and the search engines can send people to those pages with some confidence. You can also offer a "Flash version" link on the html pages.

But no matter how you slice it, they need to develop alternative html pages anyway. But I'd say don't deliver the html via user agent detection.

[surfgatinho]

I'm pretty annoyed about this as there was no consulatation with me before the designer went ahead. I'd have advised on a combination of flash built into html menus and stuff, but there we go!

Another option I was thinking was some kind of CSS to put the flash in a div on top of the html. Is this do-able and if so would it be detectable by search engines?

[ScottD]

I would just explain to them why the site as is will not do well in search engines, and remake the whole site, using bits of flash as appropriate