E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 20 (In chronological order)

From: Rycca Blanton
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2013 9:31AM
Subject: text-only version of web pages
No previous message | Next message →

What is the standard for creating text only versions of webpages? We tried using http://assistive.usablenet.com, and it works fine. However it strips out all the javascript, so our forms, search box, and translate box no longer work. Plus we found a quote on the webaim site (http://webaim.org/articles/design/textonly#intro) saying that practically nobody with a disability benefits from text-only version.

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2013 9:48AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Text-only is only really mentioned in regards to Section 508. I don't know
how many agencies require it, but some only require it if every other
option to get the content compliant fails. It was thrown in back in the day
when AT and JavaScript didn't play nicely. These days, if you have to
resort to throwing up a text-only version, you probably have some other
usability issues I'd assume.

--
Ryan E. Benson


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Rycca Blanton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> What is the standard for creating text only versions of webpages? We
> tried using http://assistive.usablenet.com, and it works fine. However
> it strips out all the javascript, so our forms, search box, and translate
> box no longer work. Plus we found a quote on the webaim site (
> http://webaim.org/articles/design/textonly#intro) saying that practically
> nobody with a disability benefits from text-only version.
>
>
> > > >

From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2013 10:49AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Ryan E. Benson wrote:

> Text-only is only really mentioned in regards to Section 508.

And that reference only allows text-only versions when the main
version cannot be made accessible in any way. In other words,
providing a text-only version of a site that is not Section 508
compliant is yet another Section 508 violation.

If you want to provide a text-only version of an accessible site, go
for it, though it will provide little utility to very few users (and
would, of course, require an additional link on each page), but an
accessible text-only version cannot be used to claim accessibility or
compliance for a site that is not already accessible/compliant.

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: GF Mueden
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 5:17AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

I beg to differ. I am set to white on black for poor contrast
sensitivity, 200% for poor acuity, often minimize and pull in the
margins for limited visual field, and my eyes are sensitive to the glare
of graphics, they blind me to any nearby copy. I would love to be able
to see many sites on a text only basis. I have no objection to graphics
where needed to tell the story, but I do object when it is obvious that
the designer is just showing off. When ordering groceries on line, it
is not necessary that the list of departments have a graphic
incorporated for each department. On the other hand it does help me to
recognize the product package.

I am not for outlawing graphics, but please give me the choice. The
ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated.

My "Advice for Publishers", written for the benefit of those who still
read with their eyes but not well, ia available as an email down load.

When I first started looking at legibility problems years ago, Dr "Gus"
Colenbrander told me that my biggest problem would be that people with
good eyes don't know how those with poor eyes see.

G F Mueden = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ===gm==212 222 8751 NYC am best


On 1/29/2013 11:31 AM, Rycca Blanton wrote:
> What is the standard for creating text only versions of webpages? We tried using http://assistive.usablenet.com, and it works fine. However it strips out all the javascript, so our forms, search box, and translate box no longer work. Plus we found a quote on the webaim site (http://webaim.org/articles/design/textonly#intro) saying that practically nobody with a disability benefits from text-only version.
>
>
> > > >

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 5:21AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

On 30/01/2013 12:17, GF Mueden@ wrote:
> I beg to differ. I am set to white on black for poor contrast
> sensitivity, 200% for poor acuity, often minimize and pull in the
> margins for limited visual field, and my eyes are sensitive to the glare
> of graphics, they blind me to any nearby copy. I would love to be able
> to see many sites on a text only basis. I have no objection to graphics
> where needed to tell the story, but I do object when it is obvious that
> the designer is just showing off. When ordering groceries on line, it
> is not necessary that the list of departments have a graphic
> incorporated for each department. On the other hand it does help me to
> recognize the product package.
>
> I am not for outlawing graphics, but please give me the choice. The
> ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated.

But all of these issues, and how you'd like to consume content, should
be handled by your user agent, rather than web content authors creating
separate text-only/limited-graphics versions, no?

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 9:41AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

GF wrote, "When ordering groceries on line, it is not necessary that the
list of departments have a graphic incorporated for each department."

Actually, for the company selling groceries, it is necessary.

Statistical research shows that nearly 100% of fully sighted customers
interpret and comprehend the graphic before reading the actual text. So
website visitors will recognize an apple graphic for the produce department
and a fish graphic for the seafood counter faster and more accurately than
if only words designated the departments. This has been so convincingly
proven by marketing and psychological research for over 100 years that it is
no longer studied. It's an accepted truth in the business and advertising
world.

The message contained in a graphic (that is, a photo, illustration, or logo)
is interpreted and comprehended in less than 1 second by someone who is
fully sighted (0.8 seconds if I remember correctly). That same message in
words will take several seconds, maybe even minutes to have the same impact,
and the worded message will often be misinterpreted or misread. The old
saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words" is accurate.

Your comment, "I have no objection to graphics where needed to tell the
story, but I do object when it is obvious that the designer is just showing
off," points in the wrong direction to find a solution for your visual
disability.

Websites with beautiful graphics, eye-catching designs, animations, rotating
slideshows and carousels, and all the other "show-off" stuff complained
about on WebAIM out-sell, out-market, out-persuade, and in all other
criteria outperform websites without these features.

So these visual features are not going to go away because they make a lot of
money for the website owners.

GF wrote, "I am not for outlawing graphics, but please give me the choice.
The ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated."

You're right, that's a solution for you.

Given that all graphics on a website use the <image> tag in the HTML code,
it might be possible to create a code widget that can hide the graphics for
you. Click and graphics are hidden, click again and they are visible.

But I wouldn't wait for the solution to be built for you. Pigs will fly
before that happens!

Why not reach out to the coder community and find someone who can co-create
this with you? There's probably a college student somewhere in the world
studying computer science who needs a small project like this for his
coursework. Heck, there might be someone in Computer Science at Utah State
University, which hosts WebAim. It could be sold as a $9.99 code widget to
web developers, who then can add that feature to websites.

GF wrote, "My "Advice for Publishers", written for the benefit of those who
still read with their eyes but not well, is available as an email down
load."

I'd love to read your ideas, GF. Please forward it to the list or to me
directly.
-Bevi Chagnon
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 9:43AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

I have seen users of all kinds use the "print friendly" page - usually
simply a different stylesheet - to get a distraction-free page.

There's also http://www.readability.com/ which handles many of the large
popular sites. Web site and mobile apps available, with personalization for
font size, column width and contrast.

I've used this when I wanted to test the actual content from different
sites and wanted to remove the confounding differences in presentation.

Whitney



On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:

> On 30/01/2013 12:17, GF Mueden@ wrote:
> > I beg to differ. I am set to white on black for poor contrast
> > sensitivity, 200% for poor acuity, often minimize and pull in the
> > margins for limited visual field, and my eyes are sensitive to the glare
> > of graphics, they blind me to any nearby copy. I would love to be able
> > to see many sites on a text only basis. I have no objection to graphics
> > where needed to tell the story, but I do object when it is obvious that
> > the designer is just showing off. When ordering groceries on line, it
> > is not necessary that the list of departments have a graphic
> > incorporated for each department. On the other hand it does help me to
> > recognize the product package.
> >
> > I am not for outlawing graphics, but please give me the choice. The
> > ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated.
>
> But all of these issues, and how you'd like to consume content, should
> be handled by your user agent, rather than web content authors creating
> separate text-only/limited-graphics versions, no?
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
> > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
> > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > >



--
Whitney Quesenbery
www.wqusability.com | @whitneyq

Storytelling for User Experience
www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/storytelling

Global UX: Design and research in a connected world
@globalUX | www.amazon.com/gp/product/012378591X/

From: GF Mueden
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 9:55AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

I don't know, Patrick. I would have to see examples.

Patrick, please tell us about your eyes. In what way are you qualified
to speak to the problem? What other solution do you have for my
problem with graphics?

===gm==

On 1/30/2013 7:21 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wroteBut all of these issues, and
how you'd like to consume content, should be handled by your user agent,
rather than web content authors creating separate
text-only/limited-graphics versions, no?

> GF Mueden@ wrote:I beg to differ. I am set to white on black for poor contrast
> sensitivity, 200% for poor acuity, often minimize and pull in the
> margins for limited visual field, and my eyes are sensitive to the glare
> of graphics, they blind me to any nearby copy. I would love to be able
> to see many sites on a text only basis. I have no objection to graphics
> where needed to tell the story, but I do object when it is obvious that
> the designer is just showing off. When ordering groceries on line, it
> is not necessary that the list of departments have a graphic
> incorporated for each department. On the other hand it does help me to
> recognize the product package.
>
> I am not for outlawing graphics, but please give me the choice. The
> ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated.
>
> P

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 9:59AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

On 30/01/2013 16:55, GF Mueden@ wrote:
> Patrick, please tell us about your eyes. In what way are you qualified
> to speak to the problem?

Fine, I'll shut up then...

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

From: GF Mueden
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 10:04AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

I can't fight evidence and must back off on those points.
My need remains. Have you a solution to offer?
===gm==

On 1/30/2013 11:41 AM, Chagnon | PubCom wrote:
> GF wrote, "When ordering groceries on line, it is not necessary that the
> list of departments have a graphic incorporated for each department."
>
> Actually, for the company selling groceries, it is necessary.
>
> Statistical research shows that nearly 100% of fully sighted customers
> interpret and comprehend the graphic before reading the actual text. So
> website visitors will recognize an apple graphic for the produce department
> and a fish graphic for the seafood counter faster and more accurately than
> if only words designated the departments. This has been so convincingly
> proven by marketing and psychological research for over 100 years that it is
> no longer studied. It's an accepted truth in the business and advertising
> world.
>
> The message contained in a graphic (that is, a photo, illustration, or logo)
> is interpreted and comprehended in less than 1 second by someone who is
> fully sighted (0.8 seconds if I remember correctly). That same message in
> words will take several seconds, maybe even minutes to have the same impact,
> and the worded message will often be misinterpreted or misread. The old
> saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words" is accurate.
>
> Your comment, "I have no objection to graphics where needed to tell the
> story, but I do object when it is obvious that the designer is just showing
> off," points in the wrong direction to find a solution for your visual
> disability.
>
> Websites with beautiful graphics, eye-catching designs, animations, rotating
> slideshows and carousels, and all the other "show-off" stuff complained
> about on WebAIM out-sell, out-market, out-persuade, and in all other
> criteria outperform websites without these features.
>
> So these visual features are not going to go away because they make a lot of
> money for the website owners.
>
> GF wrote, "I am not for outlawing graphics, but please give me the choice.
> The ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated."
>
> You're right, that's a solution for you.
>
> Given that all graphics on a website use the <image> tag in the HTML code,
> it might be possible to create a code widget that can hide the graphics for
> you. Click and graphics are hidden, click again and they are visible.
>
> But I wouldn't wait for the solution to be built for you. Pigs will fly
> before that happens!
>
> Why not reach out to the coder community and find someone who can co-create
> this with you? There's probably a college student somewhere in the world
> studying computer science who needs a small project like this for his
> coursework. Heck, there might be someone in Computer Science at Utah State
> University, which hosts WebAim. It could be sold as a $9.99 code widget to
> web developers, who then can add that feature to websites.
>
> GF wrote, "My "Advice for Publishers", written for the benefit of those who
> still read with their eyes but not well, is available as an email down
> load."
>
> I'd love to read your ideas, GF. Please forward it to the list or to me
> directly.
> -Bevi Chagnon
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
> Accessibility.
> New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.
>
> > > >

From: GF Mueden
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 10:17AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Thank you, Whitney. I use Readability frequently, but have never tried
it while grocery shopping because the pages were so "busy".

A print friendly page is very attractive. I would like to visit one.

===gm===


On 1/30/2013 11:43 AM, Whitney Quesenbery wrote:
> I have seen users of all kinds use the "print friendly" page - usually
> simply a different stylesheet - to get a distraction-free page.
>
> There's also http://www.readability.com/ which handles many of the large
> popular sites. Web site and mobile apps available, with personalization for
> font size, column width and contrast.
>
> I've used this when I wanted to test the actual content from different
> sites and wanted to remove the confounding differences in presentation.
>
> Whitney
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
>
>> On 30/01/2013 12:17, GF Mueden@ wrote:
>>> I beg to differ. I am set to white on black for poor contrast
>>> sensitivity, 200% for poor acuity, often minimize and pull in the
>>> margins for limited visual field, and my eyes are sensitive to the glare
>>> of graphics, they blind me to any nearby copy. I would love to be able
>>> to see many sites on a text only basis. I have no objection to graphics
>>> where needed to tell the story, but I do object when it is obvious that
>>> the designer is just showing off. When ordering groceries on line, it
>>> is not necessary that the list of departments have a graphic
>>> incorporated for each department. On the other hand it does help me to
>>> recognize the product package.
>>>
>>> I am not for outlawing graphics, but please give me the choice. The
>>> ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated.
>> But all of these issues, and how you'd like to consume content, should
>> be handled by your user agent, rather than web content authors creating
>> separate text-only/limited-graphics versions, no?
>>
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> >> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
>> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
>>
>> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
>> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
>> >> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 10:17AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

GM wrote, "I can't fight evidence and must back off on those points.
My need remains. Have you a solution to offer?"

Hi GM,
From what you wrote before, "I am not for outlawing graphics, but please
give me the choice.
The ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated," I replied:

You're right, that's a solution for you.

Given that all graphics on a website use the <image> tag in the HTML
code, it might be possible to create a code widget that can hide the
graphics for you. Click and graphics are hidden, click again and they are
visible.

But I wouldn't wait for the solution to be built for you. Pigs will
fly before that happens!

Why not reach out to the coder community and find someone who can
co-create this with you? There's probably a college student somewhere
in the world studying computer science who needs a small project like
this for his coursework. Heck, there might be someone in Computer
Science at Utah State University, which hosts WebAim. It could be sold
as a $9.99 code widget to web developers, who then can add that feature to
websites.

Don't wait for the solution to come to you. Web developers will stay
gainfully employed without ever meeting your needs because graphics and
visual design dominate the real world.

So become inventive. Rustle up a coder or two and have them work with you on
a code widget that will give you what you need. "Necessity is the mother of
all invention," right?

-Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.

From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 10:30AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Your browser already provides all the tools you need to access well-designed websites. You can turn off images, in which case the alternate text will be displayed. You can turn off styles and apply whatever text and background colours you want. This will also convert the pages to fluid design so you can set any window width you want and the text will reflow and there will not be a horizontal scrollbar.

Unfortunately badly-designed websites will continue to give you a poor user experience. You may need different approaches for different websites, such as leaving styles turn on while setting the text and background colours you require. I have found that this works well on some websites and not others.

You should not be so dismissive of those of us who are fully-sighted. Many of us on this email list do a great deal of work with people with a wide range of visual impairments and we do have a good understanding of their needs. All too often they are not aware that the tools they need are already available or they do not know how to use them, which is not the fault of the website designers. Whilst I don't always agree with Patrick, he is highly experienced and deserves more respect.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd

From: GF Mueden
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 10:34AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

All good, Bevi, but too late. I am 95 and losing the ability to reach
out that far. I fell yesterday with damage taking me to the ER until
5am, and they will probably want to imobilize my right wrist. I am
mousing lefty.

Thats life. ===gm==

On 1/30/2013 12:17 PM, Chagnon | PubCom wrote:
> GM wrote, "I can't fight evidence and must back off on those points.
> My need remains. Have you a solution to offer?"
>
> Hi GM,
> >From what you wrote before, "I am not for outlawing graphics, but please
> give me the choice.
> The ability to "X out" graphics would be appreciated," I replied:
>
> You're right, that's a solution for you.
>
> Given that all graphics on a website use the <image> tag in the HTML
> code, it might be possible to create a code widget that can hide the
> graphics for you. Click and graphics are hidden, click again and they are
> visible.
>
> But I wouldn't wait for the solution to be built for you. Pigs will
> fly before that happens!
>
> Why not reach out to the coder community and find someone who can
> co-create this with you? There's probably a college student somewhere
> in the world studying computer science who needs a small project like
> this for his coursework. Heck, there might be someone in Computer
> Science at Utah State University, which hosts WebAim. It could be sold
> as a $9.99 code widget to web developers, who then can add that feature to
> websites.
>
> Don't wait for the solution to come to you. Web developers will stay
> gainfully employed without ever meeting your needs because graphics and
> visual design dominate the real world.
>
> So become inventive. Rustle up a coder or two and have them work with you on
> a code widget that will give you what you need. "Necessity is the mother of
> all invention," right?
>
> -Bevi Chagnon
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
> Accessibility.
> New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.
>
>

From: GF Mueden
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 2:46PM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

I am listening, Steve. Tell me, please, where do I find information
about the tools and how to use them? And the different approaches for
different websites? Has the trade created such a resource list?

Hopefully, ===gm==

On 1/30/2013 12:30 PM, Steve Green wrote:
> Your browser already provides all the tools you need to access well-designed websites. You can turn off images, in which case the alternate text will be displayed. You can turn off styles and apply whatever text and background colours you want. This will also convert the pages to fluid design so you can set any window width you want and the text will reflow and there will not be a horizontal scrollbar.
>
> Unfortunately badly-designed websites will continue to give you a poor user experience. You may need different approaches for different websites, such as leaving styles turn on while setting the text and background colours you require. I have found that this works well on some websites and not others.
>
> You should not be so dismissive of those of us who are fully-sighted. Many of us on this email list do a great deal of work with people with a wide range of visual impairments and we do have a good understanding of their needs. All too often they are not aware that the tools they need are already available or they do not know how to use them, which is not the fault of the website designers. Whilst I don't always agree with Patrick, he is highly experienced and deserves more respect.
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 6:00PM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Please forward to list. I may benefit hugely from all thoughts and
research and ideas on accessibility.
I,for one, do not want a special or text-only website. Things like
landmarks, autocompletion, tabbed navigation, asynchronous updating of
page sections (if I am properly notified of them), onlline chat,
tickers (to some degree) and others make websites more usable for me
if I know how to operate them and the visual sepct is not messing with
the screen reader focus.
I want to use the same website as my peers with access to same info.
The moment we start designing separate websites for disabilities, I
think we'll make it much harder on ourselves, having to update and
maintain multiple versions of your website is never an attractive idea
for any developer or project manager I ever met, especially site like
grocery stores with constantly changing prices, specials and other
time dependent features.
Plus, I just really want to be able to use the same software as
everyone else. If I can't I want to find out what's stopping it and
try to help solve that issue. One man alone can't do it, but through
the exchange of ideas and getting together, we can make it happen, and
make sure it keeps happening.


On 1/30/13, GF Mueden@ < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I am listening, Steve. Tell me, please, where do I find information
> about the tools and how to use them? And the different approaches for
> different websites? Has the trade created such a resource list?
>
> Hopefully, ===gm==>
>
> On 1/30/2013 12:30 PM, Steve Green wrote:
>> Your browser already provides all the tools you need to access
>> well-designed websites. You can turn off images, in which case the
>> alternate text will be displayed. You can turn off styles and apply
>> whatever text and background colours you want. This will also convert the
>> pages to fluid design so you can set any window width you want and the
>> text will reflow and there will not be a horizontal scrollbar.
>>
>> Unfortunately badly-designed websites will continue to give you a poor
>> user experience. You may need different approaches for different websites,
>> such as leaving styles turn on while setting the text and background
>> colours you require. I have found that this works well on some websites
>> and not others.
>>
>> You should not be so dismissive of those of us who are fully-sighted. Many
>> of us on this email list do a great deal of work with people with a wide
>> range of visual impairments and we do have a good understanding of their
>> needs. All too often they are not aware that the tools they need are
>> already available or they do not know how to use them, which is not the
>> fault of the website designers. Whilst I don't always agree with Patrick,
>> he is highly experienced and deserves more respect.
>>
>> Steve Green
>> Managing Director
>> Test Partners Ltd
>>
>>

From: GF Mueden
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 9:21PM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

My programming stopped when the PC put my Trash-80 out of business, but
I remember that IF a condition existed THEN GO TO would let us skip
certain functions. Is such a mechanism available that would let a site
be seen without graphics? If there is, the idea of a whole new website
being required is not valid.
===gm==

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2013 9:37PM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

There is such a mechanism in every browser. I'm not sure which browser you're using, but if you search its Help feature for "disabling images" and "personal style sheet," you'll probably find the information you're seeking.


Usually these features can be adjusted through the Advanced Options or the like. If you find that confusing, name the browser you're using and I'll bet you'd find a number of folks on this list who'd be able to tell you just how to do it.


Cliff



From: "GF Mueden@" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] text-only version of web pages

My programming stopped when the PC put my Trash-80 out of business, but
I remember that IF a condition existed THEN GO TO would let us skip
certain functions.  Is such a mechanism available that would let a site
be seen without graphics?  If there is, the idea of a whole new website
being required is not valid.
===gm===

From: GF Mueden
Date: Thu, Jan 31 2013 3:26AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Thank you Cliff. I am using IE9.
===gm==
On 1/30/2013 11:37 PM, Cliff Tyllick wrote:
> There is such a mechanism in every browser. I'm not sure which browser you're using, but if you search its Help feature for "disabling images" and "personal style sheet," you'll probably find the information you're seeking.
>
>
> Usually these features can be adjusted through the Advanced Options or the like. If you find that confusing, name the browser you're using and I'll bet you'd find a number of folks on this list who'd be able to tell you just how to do it.
>
>
> Cliff
>
>
>
> > From: "GF Mueden@" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] text-only version of web pages
>
> My programming stopped when the PC put my Trash-80 out of business, but
> I remember that IF a condition existed THEN GO TO would let us skip
> certain functions. Is such a mechanism available that would let a site
> be seen without graphics? If there is, the idea of a whole new website
> being required is not valid.
> ===gm==> > > > > > >

From: Sandy
Date: Thu, Jan 31 2013 7:03AM
Subject: Re: text-only version of web pages
← Previous message | No next message

> where do I find information
> about the tools and how to use them?

The WebAIM WAVE toolbar has a "text only" option
http://wave.webaim.org/toolbar

is this helpful?

Sandy