[Web4lib] Web technologies and public access

[Jim Cody]

Nielsen was hired by Macromedia in 2002 to improve usability of Flash:
  http://www.adobe.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2002/macromedia_nielsen.html
   
  He changed his tune somewhat about Flash after that:
  http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
   
  "Flash is a programming environment and should be used to offer users additional power and features that are unavailable from a static page. Flash should not be used to jazz up a page."

Sean Burns <sean.csb at gmail.com> wrote:
  On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 01:09:32PM -0400, David McDonald wrote:

> However, most of the complaints he had were dealing with
> accessibility.

I don't get this. Is accessibility not important?

> He states: "There is no need to use Flash, HTML can to the job."

When HTML (or XHTML and the like) can do the job, it should do the
job. It's the KISS principle.

Also, Jakob Nielsen has some comments to say about Flash that
might be worth reviewing. Specifically, the "Break Web
Fundamentals" section at the following URL has the best comments
about the use (or misuse) of Flash.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html

> He then goes on to discuss the proprietary nature of Flash and
> that it is not answerable to Canadian law ... blah, blah, blah.

I don't know anything about Canadian law, but Flash is proprietary
and some people do have moral issues using proprietary software,
including me. Now, I don't wish to start a debate about the Free
Software movement on Web4lib, because if you're against it, that's
fine, I don't care, but I do consider "blah, blah, blah" to be
rather trollish.

> In my opinion, Flash should not be considered something
> extravagant that the average "citizen" doesn't have on his/her
> computer (or can't download). Libraries should feel perfectly
> comfortable using Flash on specialty web sites as most people
> can use this type of software.

I strongly disagree. Libraries should be extremely wary of using
proprietary software they have no control over, specifically
because they have no control over it. 

Also, because plugins are not a part of standard HTML or XHTML,
using them is stepping outside of standardization. And this is
not an IE or Firefox topic, it's simply a standards issue, and
therefore an accessibility issue, which is very important, despite
your earlier suggestion. We try to make our physical libraries
accessible to as many of our patrons as possible, we should be
doing the same for our digital libraries. 

IMHO, the fact that I have to download six or seven plugins to
view vast portions of the Web does suggest a major standards
crisis, especially if those web sites are government or library
related. In other words, I think it's necessary, especially in a
government or library context, to create a web site that is 100%
accessible. The thing is, doing that doesn't mean creating ugly
web sites. Proof of point, this site's XHTML and CSS validate:

http://www.csszengarden.com/

> My questions to the group are: To what extent do you believe
> that we should cater to patrons who may not have the latest and
> greatest hardware and software? Do we need to kowtow to the
> lowest common denominator? Should we include alternative pages
> that require no downloads?

This is not about catering. We are in a service and educational
line of work. And adhering to standards is not about the lowest
common denominator. Standards are about universal access, which
should be a desirable goal.

Salud,
Sean Burns
-- 
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:28:03 -0600
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/


       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.