Google and Flash?

Or should I ask, Google and Cloaking?

[Powdork]

I am working for a client with a current site that has a flash intro [age on the default homepage. The Enter Site link (flash) takes you to a page with the text in an iframe. Did I say text? I mean a gif in an iframe with text on the image, no alt text. There is no other text on the site. So what I'm getting at is that there is no way but up for this site, and also it is something I can test with to a degeree.
Rather than remove the flash I will use more but with the flash detection running through an external .js file. Those without flash, including Googlebot will be redirected to the html page which will be very similar in layout and will contain identical content. I have used similar methods in the past but before Googlebot followed links in .js files.
I know I shouldn't be concerned because the content presented on the page will be the same and the intent is not to deceive but I want to be sure since it isn't my site. I have always believed that a cloaking penalty required a human look at the site (other than easily recognizable tricks like those used by trafficpower).
Should I be worried?

[Powdork]

Maybe I should ask in a different way.
Does Google penalize for cloaking when the cloaked content is the same for the user as the uncloaked content?

[doc_z]

Why do you want to cloak the page? Why not simply creating a flash and a non-flash version?

[Powdork]

Why not simply creating a flash and a non-flash version?

I prefer to keep the url the same and serve the content based on their ability to see it. Either way you've got to redirect the user to the appropriate content, which is cloaking.

[doc_z]

Although I expect that you won't be penalized for this technique, I would avoid cloaking (because it's too risky). For example, you might have some changes in the flash file in the future and forget to change the HTML version - someone would think it's done for cheating and you will be penalized. Also, if you keep the url the same and serve the content based on their ability to see, you have to serve the same content, while you can split/changed/add content in case of building a separate site.

I would create simple a flash and a non-flash version and an automatic detection. Also I would put a link on the HTML version to the flash one.

[Powdork]

Why don't you think your method is cloaking?

[doc_z]

At least in my opinion it's not cloaking, but finally it just matter what Google decides. Long time ago I asked GoogleGuy if an automatic Flash detection could be cause problems, but I didn't get a reply. However, using the technique described above, but with a manual instead of automatic detection should be fine.

I use an automatic detection for years without problems.

[Powdork]

I have also used automatic detection for years, but to replace animations with jpegs. This will be different because the main content of the site will be flash. I am doing the same thing as you, but the flash and the html version will both go into the same basic template. The detection system just replaces the html content that lies within a named div with the flash content. The spider reads the html and never follows the javascript redirect to the flash. But nowadays the spiders are following the javascript links specifically to detect cloaking. I still think it should require a human look to get banned and I still think that if you are doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't have to worry about these things.