Accessibility

I thought that site was over a year old. Are you sure it was re-launched today? I saw that same site last year and I blogged about the same;
http://www.brajeshwar.com/archives/2004/06/jk_rowling.php

Read good!! Its not the site that is new but the accessibility in flash (there is a new accessible version). Who is the loser now huh!!

Bob, please change the link in your last sentence. I am pretty sure it is NOT http://www.jkrolwing.com/ but http://www.jkrowling.com/

I can't find any mention of, or tools providing, accessibility features, contrary to Zeldman's claims. I don't see what the big deal is.

I've always thought that "We wanted Flash for an 'immersive' and 'playful' experience" is another way of saying "We don't really get the Web."

Nice ever-changing CAPTCHA on your comment page, too.

although i still dislike fullscreen resize and popups... beyond that its nice

Couldn't find any keyboard short-cuts.

i have just an advice put a link to the text version just before the object close tag because not everybody use jaws or windoweyes.

i can use tab to navigate on the site but sometimes there is some strang things (for exemple the spider on the desk received focus and have no action) and there is some action i can't do with the keyboard only (turn on the radio on the about section for exemple).
For me the pause mouvement button didn't work very well.

For information a lot of people who can't heard can't read too, this way the sound glossary is not very helpful

the accessibility option are not in the french version.

I can't access to the keyboard navigation if i don't click with my mouse on the click (osX firefox)

the full screen pop up (hmmm?) is stuffed with tables and missing declaration. confused how some basic xhtml stuff can be missed.

Just thought I would say that you have a typo in the last link to JK Rowling's site.. www.jkrolwing.com instead of www.jkrowling.com

Nice site!

it's just a shame that instead of a betsie-style text only version they didn't produce a standards-compliant, gracefully degrading XHTML/CSS layout with alternate styles (including a "text-only" looking one, if you must) that still captures the feel of the graphically refined flash version...it wouldn't have been that difficult to set another good example, this time in the "accessible XHTML/CSS sites don't have to be boxy and boring"...

but yes, beyond that not bad.

Now, if they could only make it so my scroll wheel actually scrolls the content, I'd be happy.

A very accessible site, all I get is directed to a page
http://www.jkrowling.com/en/popupblocked.cfm
which doesn't tell me what has happened [safari OS X 10.4] *I* know what is wrong, but many people wouldn't. What is wrong with the window I am using anyway?

Also, using flags as a language selector is not the best idea, see the excellent article at http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/flags.html

I have just read through Zeldmans points and in truth the main gripe was that a plethora of people were used at great expense to create this accessible site. This is not the case. We worked hard to try and understand how people with poor accessibility could enjoy the same experience as the able, and that is why other groups were involved. The point in case was to show that Flash can be accessible if coded by people who know what they are doing and that the design does not have to be dull. I hope some of you can understand this.

Rob, I know this can be alarming, but it's not just you... I've seen other instances where strong pre-existing beliefs affect the listening abilities of folks online.

I think one element which has a significant effect on people is the language used... much of their literature says "X is accessible" and "Y is not accessible", an exclusive binary split, rather than the more logical "how accessible is this design to which audiences?" Once you start thinking in such an artificial black-and-white fashion it's natural to match what you observe to the definition of "accessibillity" you're carrying around at the moment, which naturally leads to odd arguments as people argue over the definition of the label.

The longterm danger of such a cognitive problem is that it then implies the need for a central structure for judgment and enforcement, which typically then ossifies and becomes susceptible to corruption. Organic systems are more my style.

I'm glad you put the extra work into that project, and for the things you discovered while doing so, thanks!

jd/mm

I'm perfectly able to engage my "listening abilities" without undue interference from my "pre-existing beliefs," unless you mean that I should just sit there and let people justify inaccessible sites (or anti-gay philosophy or similar), since my "pre-existing beliefs" would then tend to clash with my "ability" of "listening."

Nobody's saying Flash shouldn't be accessible, that X always is accessible or Y isn't, or that a certain politburo should be deciding things. Give us a break, John.

Hmmm. I guess I don't see what the big accessibility problem is here either. John made a good point over at his site about how pictures, animation, and sound can actually be considered "more accessible" to small children than long passages of text. So if that's true, the question is, what is the target audience for this site and does that target audience have an easier/better time exploring an all-Flash site like this or not?

I personally don't enjoy sites which make me think in order to navigate around, and this site clearly falls into that category, but I'm an information hyperconsumer these days so I'm sure that has dramatically affected my patience with these things. Would a kid very much enjoy navigating around the jkrowling site? Quite possibly. Would a kid be totally bored and disenchanted by a plain XHTML site? Quite possibly. The creators of the JK Rowling site provide both so I don't see what the accessibility beef is. I have a bit of a *usability* beef with it (as stated above), but maybe that's just me... I don't know. I also think the text version probably deserves a bit of prettying up.

The bottom line for me is that this is a site done by a private company, for a private company, and therefore, they will benefit or suffer naturally from the decisions they've made with it. It doesn't break any laws and it doesn't discriminate against disabled people. You may not particularly enjoy navigating around it, but that's more of a usability thing, so that's where the discussion should be centered.

Also, with regards to both the human and monetary cost of producing this site, who cares? Does anyone know how many Harry Potter books are sold every second? If I'm making hundreds of millions of dollars on my product, I don't care about putting a few extra resources into my website.

Hmmm... I know this site is way older then a tweek. It is a great site but still I wonder why it labeld as new???

Is this some web add for Harry Potter... Macromedia part of it.

hmmmm

The flash doesn't seem to be keyboard navigable in the same way as other accessible examples I've seen, i.e. there are no yellow bounding boxes around the element you are on.

Is that due to a change in the way Flash/IE works, or have I been looking at the wrong one ;)

Also, a major bugbear I have with most 'accessible' flash projects (including one I was involved with a couple of years ago, I have to admit!), it that they make scaling it difficult.

I have a large resolution in a not very big screen (1600px wide within 16" screen). This makes fonts very small. I can compensate for websites with text (DPI settings & font sizing), but not for flash.

I couldn't read it, not even close. However, digging through the code and using the SWF file was great (I like the site!). A link that allows you to do this would be very helpful.

Given that flash does this so well, and that it is a direct equivelent of the WCAG relative sizing issue, is this something to add to Flash best practice?

I WRITE IN CAPS COS IM PARTIALLY SIGHTED..I'VE JUST FINISHED 'THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE' ON TAPE IM AN ADDICT...CANT WAIT FOR THE NEXT ONE!! JUST MAGICAL... I'M 74..A GRAN...AND LIVE IN THE U.K. HAPPY POTTERING! ALLIE