- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:26:44 -0800
- To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spinsol.com>, "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 10:26 AM 2/14/2001, Jon Hanna wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Well they are by me, and I was going to explain why in an article for >a local group, but I don't want to re-invent the wheel. Does anyone >know of a similar article anywhere? I think it's important to define what you mean by "text only" and under what circumstances those "text only" pages are generated. The most common use of text only pages has been when someone creates an inaccessible graphically rich web site -- say, they leave out alt text -- and then builds a "text only" version which is supposed to be easier to use. The problems with such a page include: (1) They serve as an "excuse" for not making the main page more accessible; why add alt text if you have a text only page? (Well, there are many good reasons, but this is example of an incorrect approach to the problem!) (2) Many times the content is not the same as the graphical site; this may be due to limited resources to create the text only version, resulting in a curtailed version of the info on the site. Alternately, this may be a maintenance problem which means the text only info is not in the update cycle and thus can be "behind" the current info on the graphical site. (3) Finally, many "text only sites" are poorly designed by people who don't understand the concept of structured HTML to begin with, which means that the text version may not actually be more accessible at all! E.g. wrapping a page in <pre> does not really help all that much. So, that's the problem with "text only." However, with the increasing use of database-driven web sites and the ability to generate alternate interfaces (c.f. Edapta), it is possible to create dynamically generated web interfaces which amount to a "text only" view of a page which ignore the traditional pitfalls associated with that term. So it becomes not as simple as merely stating that "text only versions are harmful" but rather saying "poorly done text only sites are harmful." A carefully built site edapted for screen reader users, for example, has many benefits over a single-presentation, "degrades gracefully" web site. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Customer Management/Edapta Reef North America Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ ACCESSIBILITY IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Friday, 16 February 2001 11:36:04 UTC