- From: Suzan Dolloff <averil@concentric.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:15:44 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
(This thread originated on the WAI-IG list and has been copied to this one.) Re: Text-Only Version link on web page, Chris Maden wrote: CM: I find that a strange suggestion. If the page is readable in Lynx (as you note), why make yet another version? SD: Many blind web surfers use graphical browsers and have never even heard of Lynx. We're just as subject to the hype of "get Netscape Now" or "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" icons as anyone else, Chris. Provided the ordinary web surfer is as proficient with browser software as those of us who spend tens of hours each day using them, AND provided browser manufacturers have included programming which immediately renders the "Print" function results in a format that is as instantly accessible to a vision-impaired user as a sighted one (doesn't require having to crank up yet another adaptive device, in other words), then no, a text-only version isn't necessary. I have yet to run any web page through Bobby where the annotations did NOT include the suggestion of a text-only version. And just how much more work is copy/paste to create a .TXT file compared to creating, say, a frames/no-frames alternative? I'd also like to clarify something I believe was misunderstood. Text-only version links MUST include the actual URL to a link (http:///www.something.org) since they're obviously not hypertext. CM: Secondly, ACCESSIBILITY MUST BE EASY. SD: Yes. ESPECIALLY to the people who most benefit from it and are already being expected to integrate their use of the Internet with GUI interpretation. CM: Most people can see. While I want my site to be visible to as many as possible, every extra piece of work necessary moves the border of "possible". Making duplicate versions of every file quickly pushes the visually challenged into the "impossible" side, especially for large Web sites. SD: To be as succinct and as polite as possible, Chris: tough nuggies. It's a compassionate AND necessary accommodation in some cases, as is providing frames/no frames options, not to mention plain common sense for reaching the broadest audience. Anyone on the Web who wants my money for their product better be creating a site which makes it possible for me to know what the product is! I submit inclusion of a conversion tool (.html to .txt) in next-generation HTML authoring software programs would practically address this issue from either side of the fence. Until then, be glad it's no more complicated than copy/paste. I DO appreciate what you're saying in terms of the work required to generate/duplicate file content, and I, personally, would rather suck eggs than retrofit an existing site (since, as a designer, I'm usually so relieved to have it DONE the first time in order to move onto the next project). However, since the objective here is to provide accessibility to all, I stand behind my assertion we have to practice what we preach, WHATEVER it takes to make a web site accessible. CM: Right now, Lynx renders <hr> as a series of underscores. Does this bother you - does your screen reader read underscores? SD: I thought I'd already explained how using voice synthesis with different applications often *requires* hearing punctuation pronounced despite the fact the software's default configuration is usually set up so the listener does NOT hear it. For example, imagine trying to learn how to write HTML without hearing the exclamation mark or dashes in a comment, e.g., <!--comment -->. So yes, Chris, I hear and am annoyed by repetitions of "underscore-underscore-underscore-underscore..." as a text alternative to a decorative horizontal rule simply because some designer was bound and determined to have me appreciate his page layout. However, as a web designer myself, it IS nice to know how someone has laid out a page, and that brings me to something I learned about just yesterday by following links on CAST's Bobby site. http://www.wgbh.org/wgbh/index.html This well-designed and highly-accessible web site uses what's known as a D link, or "description." Clicking on a D link takes users to another web page which offers image or sound descriptions whose robust explanations aren't well served by ALT or TITLE or LONGDESC attributes. A sound description for a .wav file, for example, is an actual transcript of the lyrics which, obviously, cannot be heard by a deaf person. An image description can not only explain a specific graphic, it could also include an explanation of the page's layout. Now, I, personally, like this D-link idea very much, since it means I'm still using my graphical browser just like anyone else when I click on the link taking me to the description page, but I concede this is yet another file to create and could just as easily be contained in a text file as an HTML file. If you get a chance, Chris, please visit the above-listed URL. This is a sharp web site from both an "abled" and disabled perspective and, in my opinion, one of the best examples I have yet to encounter of seamless integration of aesthetics and accessibility. Respectfully, if still somewhat tweaked by facetious tones, Reé Dolloff mailto:averil@concentric.net
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 1998 14:15:20 UTC