I posted a little while back about Google’s better support for Flash movies. At the time I was more worried about the potential for abuse by black hat SEOs however an article dissecting in more detail about what Google can and can’t see in Flash movies has reassured me slightly and what’s more it backs up my belief that if you want to be listing in search engines relying on Flash isn’t going to help.

The biggest thing that I noticed involved where JavaScript is used to embed a Flash movie into the page. In these cases it is unlikely Google will be able to access the Flash movie and therefore your content is again worthless. So if you’re using the fantastic standards compliant swfobject make sure you include backwards compatible object tags to ensure Google sees your movies! Or better still only use Flash where you can’t do the same thing in HTML and CSS.

Some people think applications in Facebook are great - I’m of the opinion that in the majority of cases they are a complete waste of my time. I welcomed the opportunity to block a particular application forever with open arms - no more do I have Funwall requests 50 times a day!

Since then it’s now even possible to block application requests from a particular friend - it’s always the same people. You know who you are!

However there are some useful applications out there and I do wonder if I’m sometimes missing out. This leads me to occasionally accept a request just to see what the application does. Quite a lot of the time it seems for an application to work I’ve got invite all my friends to use the application first. So application spam on Facebook has become very common.

Of course this is just application developers being inpatient about spreading their applications - good apps will always float to the top it just takes time so stop using spammy techniques!

However Facebook are now to provide a ranking system for applications - basically marking good apps as “Great apps”. Excellent saves my time - I won’t be trying anything out without this seal of approval from now on.

This also covers various other issues such as the use of personal details so hopefully this will roll out as quickly as possible - developers can have their applications vetted from September.

Facebook have talked for a while about a whole new layout and it’s finally available to the masses. Currently it’s still not the default layout for facebook.com but if you go to the direct URL for the new one you can give it a go.

Apart from the new 1024 pixel wide design which of course is the new standard online it really tries to separate those pesky applications! At last!

I’ll be giving it a good going over tonight - what are your thoughts on this new layout?

That “text only” link you see on some websites winds me up. It really makes me see red. To me it shows lack of understanding and laziness when it comes to accessibility. It goes against the accessibility initiative.

This type of ”alternative” site is providing a second class service for those who would benefit from accessibility enhancements. Some sites I’ve seen actually run these as completely separate sites generally of lower priority which leads to out of date or inaccurate content in comparison to the main website!

As I’ve been banging on about for ages there are easy ways to makes sure the main website is available to everybody without the need for a text only version - if web best practices are used you’d be surprised how many ticks you’ll already have in your accessibility boxes.

However an article that has made me think a little more about this subject is one about accessibility being in a post-guideline age. The basic premise being that following the guidelines is not enough to ensure good website accessibility and user testing is key. This of course is correct although I feel not always realistic in every case - I’ll come back to this later.

The thing that jumped out in this article is the mention that maybe “alternative” versions of a website are now acceptable. Not in the same scheme of things as the text only cop-outs I mentioned earlier but in the respect that everyone is receiving tailored content for the individual so why not use this to enhance the site for everyone? Perhaps this tailored content could actually mean that, for example, people using screen readers could have a particularly optimised experience to fit them?

My personal opinion is this should only be an extension of existing accessibility functions on the site but certainly has potential. Different users have different needs and therefore some techniques can boost their experience - possibly even making other user’s experience not as good.

User testing would be imperative to ensure every personalisation made the best for a particular group but this is where I come back to my earlier point about not being realistic in every case.

User testing isn’t cheap and there is an iterative process involved which too can increase development costs for a website. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done but not all companies can afford to spend the extra doing this. The situation currently still has accessibility proponents having to convince some companies to look at accessibility at all.

Accessibility standards I believe are becoming mature and with the British Standard in the future I can only see more and more companies seeing this as essential. I don’t believe the web development community is yet in a position to support this across the board although knowledge is spreading and maybe the nay sayers are beginning to have their heads turned by the convincing arguments of the accessibility community.

It’s still a process that is going to take time - larger companies (or those very reliant on being inclusive to all) will set the standard and user testing for accessibility will become the norm. In the meantime the guidelines are of exceptional importance and the accessibility community must be supportive to companies that make unintentional mistakes.