I recently got more enlightened as to w3c standards. But i need to be more enlightened, can a w3c compliant site have a flash movie even if it is a tiny swf file?

I would say no if you are using mx, in flash 8, maybe as I 've heard this has been addressed to an extent in flash 8, (peharps someone will confirm this?) From just reading their blurb, it would seem they have addresses some accessiblity issues but I doubt that it would be fully compliant.
If you have just a tiny bit as you say, depending on what it is, maybe providing an alternative to cover that(maybe in html, css and maybe xml)other wise you will be excluding a part of your audience from accessing that part of your site.
Here's some info from W3C
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/wai-pageauth.pdf

and this is from the macromedia's site

"While a wide range of design possibilities can be made to comply with the Section 508 guidelines using design techniques and integrating complementary technologies with Macromedia Flash, some Macromedia Flash content will never be accessible using the current Macromedia Flash Player. Such content includes dynamic text variables and custom navigational elements, which are not exposed to the operating system using the same methods as HTML"

Hi Iofall -- surprised to find a lady interested in IT. How come most women are scared of writing code or such things?

Concerning flash and w3c standards, I don't think the <embed> tag is supported for XHTML so it won't validate. If you exclude the <embed> tag, flash won't show in gecko-based browsers.

Why do you care about W3C complaince? Is W3C complaince going to put food on your table? The time spent worrying about W3C complaince is better spent thinking about browser compatibility and practical usability.

@ Seun, the whole point of the W3C compliance is that any web application can work irrespective of browser or platform. So in ither words if you are trying to endure usability of your site, you are actually thinking of compliance.

If you are using Firefox, one of the extensions is used in checking and reporting errors for you while developing.

ok, had typed up another reply hope this posts now, Yep, xhtml uses the object tag –sometimes combined with the old embed one…to ensure compatibility with all browsers.
Jogego has put it nicely….cross browser compatibility is part of W3C standards or recommendations.
I may be reading this wrong but I think what Seun is saying is …first define your audience and their requirements and then build to meet those requirements….complying with W3C recommendations should not be your sole priority ie don't try to conform to standards just for the sake of it,
@Zahymaka there’s a good no of ladies in IT …okay maybe it’s still mainly a man’s world …not sure why…as for moi…I decided to learn some scripting and coding so I would not be messed about my colleagues-programmers and developers…when I need a project completed. Alas, I don’t have the time to take it as seriously as I would have liked,

For those who are saying W3C is about cross-browser compatibility, can you tell me if XHTML files are rendered correctly on IE 4, 5, or older versions of Opera?

The aim of the W3C is to set standards which when adhered to, all browsers can live in peace. For this to work, new browsers have to be released little by litle.

It was necessary because during the browser wars, browser vendors came up with different tags that were not strict html [blink for netscape and marquee for ie].

XHTML was created to remedy this situation by providing a standard all browsers strive to follow instead of the browser vendors creating their standards -- that doesn't mean you have to wait for people using archaic browsers like IE4.

A flash site itself is not a problem with w3c standards. A flash movie is like any other movie. The only concern will be the code used to embed the movie into a web page. And as already stated by some, the OBJECT tag is compliant with standards. For backward compatibility, EMBED also needs to go inside the OBJECT tag.

I commend those who are at least paying attention to standards. A unified coding system is better for the web community at large. Javascript used to be such a mess some years ago because of incompatible standards. Today, the newer browsers are getting better, and obeying the DOM standard.

My point is that in the real world you need to cater for whatever browsers people are using. W3C complaince is a problem for browser maker. once they are all W3C complaint then we can start fussing over the standards!

I test my site in most browsers before I deploy it -- that's one thing I have to do all the time. View it in Opera, Mozilla or IE [from version 4 of ie up] and you'll kno what I mean.

I guess at this point I need to point out that someone above has already answered the original question: apparently, Macromedia Flash sites are W3C complient.

@sbucareer. So what are you trying to say? Yes or no? And how does a blind person program?

I'm wondering about that too.

Well, it goes to show that developers need to be more aware of the needs of their intended audience. The physically handicapped can use recent technologies as well. Apart from screen readers already mentioned, how many people know that Opera has the technology for using voice?

It seems as if I pot my point accross in the wrong way earlier on, but what I was trying to say was that web applications need to be accessible accross any platform. For example, Opera works on mobile phones and should render pages much in the same way as if it was being viewed on a computer.

I do not think this view of utopia can be achieved without developers thinking of making their applications viewable accross any platform.

@sbucareer

You have a point about accessibility to the impaired.

But let's face it, if you're blind, you cannot watch movies online.  And no w3c standard can change that. Unless of course you're saying that movies should be removed from the Internet to accommodate the blind.

We shouldn't confuse w3c recommendations with w3c standards.  What you've enumerated are mere recommendations, which as Seun said could be selectively scorned depending on your target audience.

sbucareer:


You are too naive or not accustomed with blind people accomplishment in todays modern society. I will not tell you the name of the software, because we are not allowed to say. But a recognition software that allows them to read print from their punch cards to the voice recognition software specially build for them and the software translate it to program, very easy if you knowledge can comprehend it.

Deaf people, off course can see, but with the help of special software which I will not mention here lets them hear or mimic hearing. Do you want to tell me that blind people cannot read and write? If you can answer that question then they can read the computer and write the company programs.

I don't want this to be a debate. If you can not understand technology it is up to you. A simple google search can give you examples of blind and deaf using computer, it is no rocket science.

It is only the IT company that I work for can afford such a research and promot equal employment opportunity like this. Mind you a blind man was once a Home Office Secretry of UK. Now tell me whether he uses computer or not?

Zahymaka, I am suprise that you are in the USA and do not know these things? What a shame!

Thanks sbu, now I know. Thats really enlightening.

oasis:

@sbucareer

You have a point about accessibility to the impaired.

But let's face it, if you're blind, you cannot watch movies online. And no w3c standard can change that. Unless of course you're saying that movies should be removed from the Internet to accommodate the blind.

We shouldn't confuse w3c recommendations with w3c standards. What you've enumerated are mere recommendations, which as Seun said could be selectively scorned depending on your target audience.

Do people really watch movies online as in it is a successful venture?
Seun, should you compromise standards because of money?

Do people really watch movies online as in it is a successful venture?
Seun, should you compromise standards because of money?

Oh yes, people watch movies online. Check out sites like movieflix, atomfilms, or winampTV, etc.

With assymetric 9 Mbps down/1 Mbps up Internet speed in people's homes going for $45/month, what stops you from watching movies online?