I must be in a time warp here. Google has been able, as far as I know, to extract textural content from flash files for well over a year. I also stated this in a forum weeks ago, when there was a strong opinion that flash was dying due to non compliance. Perhaps they've just implemented it's practise within their search results? That sounds what u r saying.

I first optimised for google in flash over a year ago.

How it is done? I'm not quite sure of the algorythmic math, but proceduraly within flash it is quite simple. On the timeline, within the movie, make sure any text u use is not broken apart (turned into a vector graphics). Also use standard web fonts, though this severely hinders design (as most flashers know, using a fancy font design means you have to 'break apart' the font so it can be seen on other computers, but gives a better look).

The only problem as far as I can see is the repetitive words a Google search finds. This seems to happen if the font is animated (moved across the stage), and each cell frame instance generates it's own word, over and over in the Google results. The viewer might see the word Flash floating across their screen, but Google will find Flash Flash Falsh Falsh Flash etc. I'm not sure if they'll fix this annoying aspect due to macromedia security concerns which are quite valid within themselves (if they 'complied' on the many levels thay are asked to, flash could turn into a virus factory). I also doubt that many people will be led to click on a result that is just one word ad infinitum, unless developers are allowed to add hidden keywords that are not animated. Who knows?

__________________
Jeremy