- From: Isofarro <lists@isofarro.uklinux.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:47:00 +0000
- To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Léonie Watson wrote: > Eloquently put. I'd add to this technical argument by saying that for > many people a text only option is a second class solution. I'd be a lot harsher than that :-) The fundamentals of a dynamically generated text-only website are wrong, and the end result is no better than the start result, and typically is worse. For instance, take a page with an image with no alternative text equivalent (perhaps the most typical of accessibility barriers). Its inaccessible. The solution is to include a textual alternative as well as the image. Yet, an automated tool to create text-only websites does not do this. Instead, it removes the image. Question: How does removing the image classify as improving the accessibility of the page? Yes, it declutters the page (in amazon's case, the repetitive "obidos" disappear), yet this isn't the main barrier to access. The barrier is that the content is locked away inside the image. Dynamically generated text-only websites remove the inaccessible content, instead of making it accessible. It removes the evidence that there is inaccessible content, rather than provide its users with equivalent content. Calling it a second class solution is being very generous! Mike.
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 18:53:08 UTC