E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)

From: julian.rickards
Date: Wed, Dec 03 2003 12:37PM
Subject: RE: Web accessibility: The Text-only Revolution
No previous message | Next message →

Therer was a recent discussion on this product. Go to
http://www.webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread.php?thread=1697 to view the
discussions.

Jules

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Shawn Lawton Henry
Date: Wed, Dec 03 2003 3:48PM
Subject: RE: Web accessibility: The Text-only Revolution
← Previous message | Next message →

> Subject: FW: Web accessibility: The Text-only Revolution

Very dangerous:
- text-only versions are rarely totally equivalent in content to the
graphic ("real") version
- text-only is accessible to some, and not to others; for example people
with cognitive disabilities often benefit from graphical elements such
as effective icons and navigation areas set apart on a coloured
background
- when there is a text-only version available, developers usually do not
make the graphic ("real") version accessible


From "Understanding Web Accessibility" in "Constructing Accessible
Websites" [1]:

Myth: Just Add a Text-Only Version

A common approach to providing accessible web pages is to design a site,
and then make a separate accessible site, that is, text-only version.
The issue of text-only versions crosses into the idea of separate versus
inclusive design. In today's environment, providing separately developed
sites is rarely the best approach for accessibility, or for business.
(However, providing truly equivalent information that can be accessed
graphically or textually from the same content source is advantageous.)

In the past, common assistive technologies were not able to handle
complex web page designs. For example, screen readers read across the
screen, so multi-column newspaper-style layouts were not usable. It was
nearly impossible at one time to provide visually appealing, complex,
dynamic web sites that were also accessible. Therefore, designers were
faced with the choice of either significant constraints on their design
or providing a text-only version. Now, technologies let you develop
visually appealing, complex, dynamic web sites that are also accessible.
Style sheets offer more presentation functionality, assistive
technologies can handle layout tables, and browsers provide text
resizing. Many recent technologies from the W3C such as Scaleable Vector
Graphics (SVG) actually provide more flexibility for presentation as
well as accessibility support.

There are several problems with providing a separate accessible site:

- Separate versions are rarely equal. When there are two versions of the
site, invariably, the text-only version does not get updated as
frequently as the main version. Even when organizations and individuals
have the best intentions of keeping two sites synchronized, the
realities of deadlines and limited resources interfere. As discussed
overleaf, emerging technologies and methodologies are minimizing this
problem.

- The primary version often lacks even the most basic accessibility.
Commonly, developers of alternative accessible test-only sites spend
little effort making the primary site accessible. The alternative site
is often optimized for screen readers, with all information provided
linearly and without graphics and color. However, some people would be
better off using an accessible primary site.

Some new tools generate both a primary site and a text-only site from a
single source of content, supposedly eliminating the first problem
mentioned, that of separate sites not being synchronized. In one such
implementation that I reviewed, the text-only site was fairly close in
content to the primary site. However, the alternative site was missing
promotional material. Therefore, users of the text-only version missed
out on special offers offered through the web site. Clearly this was
discriminatory.

Certainly technologies and development efforts are beginning to provide
the tools and methodologies needed to ensure that truly equivalent
multiple versions of a site can be provided. For example, using XSLT to
transform XML documents into other markup more suited for specific
configurations or ASP to dynamically generate pages from database or XML
files. Organizations such as SmartForce are creating multiple versions
from a single content source. This is a promising development.

---

[1] "Constructing Accessible Websites" by Jim Thatcher, Cynthia Waddell,
Shawn Henry, Sarah Swierenga, Mark Urban, Michael Burks, Paul Bohman,
Publisher: APress; Reprint edition (July 14, 2003), ISBN: 1590591488


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

From: Kevin A Sesock
Date: Wed, Dec 03 2003 4:46PM
Subject: Re: Now I'm just plain confused... (was: RE: Web accessibility: The Text-only Revolution)
← Previous message | No next message

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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
12/03/2003 03:59 PM
Please respond to webaim-forum


To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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/