Despite Adobe Flash being preinstalled on 98% of all browsers why does it still get a bad rap when it comes to website accessibility?

And what do people mean when they say "accessibility" anyway?

More often when they refer to Flash accessibility the issue is the download size (usually large), rich interactions and an inability to back-button through content the same way you can with static HTML pages.

Consider this for a second…

Comparing HTML to Flash is like comparing a comic book to a television cartoon.

So let’s look at the accessibility of television content...

Just like Flash, television has moving pictures - so why aren’t people also complaining about that? I can't get Maori or Prime TV because I don't have a UHF aerial, so that's not accessible. And I have an older model 4:3 cathode screen TV, so the resolution isn't great. And if I’m not at home by 5:20pm on Saturdays I miss out on Nigella. So how does TVNZ expect me to learn to cook with deli food?

If the same e-Govt rules applied to television then the following would apply:

• The TV networks would be obliged to post me stills and captions for every program if I asked for them.
• Maori and Prime TV would have to also broadcast in VHF.
• HDTV shows wouldn't be allowed to crop off the picture for those without 19:6 screens.
• Nigella would need to be screened at an accessible time to suit me.

And what about TVNZ channels 6 and 7? They're not accessible to me either because a Freeview box actually isn't free. That’s blatant discrimination. A digital divide in fact.

Luckily television does have some rudimentary accessibility tools including Teletext captions. But on the whole, while TV is getting more diverse, it’s fast becoming less accessible to the masses (unless they fork out thousands for the latest and greatest HDTV screens, set-top boxes, aerials or dishes).

And it gets worse. The Government plans to disconnect analogue TV in 2012.

With my present setup that’ll knock me off the television network completely (so I’m keeping my emergency stash of Tintin comics).

So, let’s nip the Flash issue in the butt and do the same for anyone running a computer older than 2 years, any connections slower than 512k broadband and browsers preceding IE8.

Uh oh, my iMac is almost 10 years old, has Xtra broadband at 128kbps (on a good day), a lowly 1024x768 resolution and I’m running Firefox 2.

Looks like those Tintin comics will be coming out of the closet in 2012 afterall.

All sounds a bit ridiculous doesn’t it?

So what is wrong with using Flash anyway?

Answer: Nothing…

…it’s how we’re using it.

The NZ e-Government website specifically states the following in regard to Flash:

"Flash should not be used in isolation, as the only means of accessing the intended information. Where Flash is used, the information should also be provided in a more accessible form".

So you can use Flash! It’s just that you shouldn’t use it as the only means of access for information (note, keyword = “information”, not interaction).

The Government then tell us:

 "…if after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page".

Huh? What does this mean?

Well, the solution is actually quite simple. Being accessible means that someone wanting information needs an alternative way to get it.

So, if they can’t (or don’t want to) access content created in Flash (or JavaScript, AJAX, Silverlight for that matter) then think about the online and offline alternatives you might offer…

• HTML?
• A downloadable document? (e.g. PDF, RTF)
• A telephone number or email address?
• A CD-Rom or DVD? (sent by post)
• A booklet? (sent by post)

Do any of these and you’ll likely meet the e-Govt requirements because you’re giving people an alternative way to access content.

Of course your Flash creation might rely on animation, sound and interaction to communicate its message or engage the audience. And therein lies a challenge for online designers.

What they need is Tintin…

…the age-old art form of comics has a lot to offer in replicating the feel and effectiveness of interactive media. Comics convey content combined with (implied) movement and expression. All that’s missing is audio, but that comes for free inside the readers’ imagination.

Could comics be the answer to more accessible content?