W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: LIFT Text Transcoder

From: Isofarro <lists@isofarro.uklinux.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:47:00 +0000
Message-ID: <440DD524.90609@isofarro.uklinux.net>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT