Are Websites in flash accepted in the directory finally?

Or does netscape 4 rule still apply?

[spaidermen]

I want to submit a website made in Flash to Yahoo! directory.
Is this possible? Or should it be readable by Netscape 4?

[2_much]

I think old rules still apply.

[spaidermen]

So you wouldn't risk?

[spaidermen]

Isn't that anachronistic?

[rfgdxm1]

>Isn't that anachronistic?

You might be surprised at how many people are using dinosaur browsers out there. Lots of people who don't use their that computer much really don't care if they are anachronistic. And, old computers that are still serviceable often get passed on to others, or end up being bought dirt cheap by people who can't afford, or don't want to pay much, for a computer.

Accessibilty issues for handicapped users, etc. is another concern.

[spaidermen]

I know that. But let's assume it's 10%. Why not listing a website that 90% of users could see?

It's like, why having a phonebook if 10% of people don't have a telephone?

[markd]

Spidey

Last time I submitted a site to Yahoo (some time ago) it was rejected because the site had the audacity to use a graphic/Java rollover for the main site menu!

What I am trying to find out (amongst many, many other things) is if the new Yahoo PFI/PPC programme also has this luddite approach to accepting pages.

Any ideas on this anyone?

[rfgdxm1]

>I know that. But let's assume it's 10%. Why not listing a website that 90% of users could see?

>It's like, why having a phonebook if 10% of people don't have a telephone?

Because of editorial policy. In particular, why list some websites that handicapped people can't use when it is technically easy for webmasters to make websites handicapped accessible?

[spaidermen]

Alright. So why develop flash if webmasters can easily use html instead?

[rfgdxm1]

A flash site can also have an HTML version. And, note that the inventors of Flash likely didn't have Yahoo directory editorial policy in mind. Just because Flash was created doesn't mean Yahoo editors have to think it is desirable.

[spaidermen]

Well, 2 versions of a website means doubling the costs... but not doubling the visitors, nor the revenue. As for Yahoo! editors, I think they should think about what is desirable for their users, not for themselves.

[markd]

I agree with Spidey - the goal of a universally accessible site is just that, a 'goal'.

Just as it is Yahoo's 'editorial policy' (flawed in my opinion) to exclude certain type of sites, it must be the perogative of the firm to set a threshold for their site.

If they loose significant visitors who may be visually impaired then they make a business decision and adjust the site accordingly.

Where do you draw the line?

Magazines which are printed in 'extra large type'? Yes, a sensible idea but one we all know will not be largely adopted.

My arguement with 'editorial policies' which are subjective (rather than exclude because of 'technical errors') is that how do you handle sites which are cutting edge? Those that offer widespread video, audio etc. Do you exclude them because a plug-in, fast connection or something above NS 4.7 is required to view them?

[Tim]

Flash is OK for the Yahoo Directory. I just talked to one of the directory editors. He said that the Navigator rule is an old one and generally if it works in IE6 that is fine.
Tim

[edited by: Tim at 4:20 pm (utc) on April 16, 2004]

[spaidermen]

Thank you for the clarification. It's up to website owners to make a html standard option available

[spaidermen]

Just wondering... why isn't that novelty indicated in the submitting guidelines page? Personally, I find this lack of transparency quite annoying.

[markd]

Thanks Tim - at last!

But I agree, I wish that Yahoo had these things clearly indicated in their terms.

Surely good for us and good for Yahoo's business?