WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Now I'm just plain confused... (was: RE: Web accessibility: The Text-only Revolution)

for

From: Kevin A Sesock
Date: Dec 3, 2003 4:46PM

My guess is that this has something to do with marketing (Marketing
departments driving accessibility... just what we need).

"We're selling stuff that makes websites have text-only. We need to have
text-only as well."

People equate text-only to accessibility. They also equate it to "Black
text on a white background".

Most people (except web professionals and some Opera users... am I leaving
anyone out?) aren't even going to know you can shut off Author defined
style sheets and read just the text (or use your own style-sheet).

And now, on with my gripe...

I've seen UsableNet go downhill quite a bit. Why are they selling
solutions to companies that, ultimately, is nothing more than a hack? This
is not accessibility... this is a kludge designed to give people an
easy-out. I'm right now very thankful that, despite all of it's problems,
Section 508 contains wording which only allows "Text-Only" as a last
resort.

Since my state (Oklahoma) is working on legislation modeled partially
after Section 508, requiring accessibility in state agencies, this becomes
a moot point for State Government here in Oklahoma. This, text-only
revolution, as it were, will not suffice.

And...revolution? I say we have a revolution against Text-Only. I see
text-only in a lot of places, and unfortunately, all it does is tick me
off. UsableNet seems to believe that they can sell an expensive product to
companies and organizations that don't know any better, without actually
being concerned with accessibility themselves. UsableNet is now
permanently on my list. And it's not a good list, at that.

Maybe I'm just angry, without a right to be. Text-Only has its place, in
websites that unfortunately cannot be made accessible in any other way
(which is rare), and therefore this tool has a valid usage in some
circumstances. But why are they marketing it as the next greatest thing
since sliced bread? Create a tool to fill a need, not find needs that a
tool will (partially) fill.

I don't know. I give up.

Kevin A. Sesock, A+, NET+, CNA, MCSA
Assistive Technology/Accessibility Support
Information Technology Division
Oklahoma State University

"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood,
delight to they who have listened." --Odin




<EMAIL REMOVED>
12/03/2003 03:59 PM
Please respond to webaim-forum


To: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
cc: (bcc: Kevin A Sesock/it/Okstate)
Subject: Now I'm just plain confused... (was: RE: Web accessibility: The Text-only
Revolution)



If you visit the UsableNet website here:
http://www.usablenet.com/products_services/customers.html to their credit
(and my tip-of-the-hat) the page validates as XHTML 1.0 Strict (!!) If
you
"click" on the link to serve up the same page as "Text Only" the resulting
page drops to Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional... still valid, but why are
they
doing this? Am I the only one confused by this?

If they validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict, they have effectively separated the
"design" from the text already and are using CSS for design layout etc. At
this point, don't all user agents that require / serve up text only get
just
that? Why would you need to create a link which serves up an earlier HTML
version of the same content (minus the pretty)? The hard part has already
been done...

Perhaps this cold I feel coming on has something to do with my addled
brain
today, but can anybody from this list (or perhaps UsableNet) explain why a
tool which moves content "backwards" to an earlier version of HTML is
useful?

JF
--
John Foliot <EMAIL REMOVED>
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)



----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/





----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/