E-mail List Archives
Thread: Text-Only Version of sites
Number of posts in this thread: 10 (In chronological order)
From: Swift, Daniel P.
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 8:25AM
Subject: Text-Only Version of sites
No previous message | Next message →
Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies? Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over year and I'm considering alternatives.
Thanks!
Dan Swift
Senior Web Specialist
University Communications and Marketing
West Chester University
610.738.0589
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 8:28AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
On 28/10/2019 14:25, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies? Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over year and I'm considering alternatives.
Nowadays there's little to no advantage to having a "text only version"
of a site, provided that the site is reasonably accessible in and of itself.
Why do you feel you need to continue providing such a version?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Swift, Daniel P.
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 8:43AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick:
That's a valid point that I've been struggling with ... we've viewed it as a "safety net" believing that if there were any major issues, the third party would provide alternative access to our data. Our site is very accessible with minor issues that keep appearing. With accessibility lawsuits on the rise after the last few years, one can't help but be paranoid.
Thanks!
Dan Swift
Senior Web Specialist
University Communications and Marketing
West Chester University
610.738.0589
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 10:28 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Text-Only Version of sites
On 28/10/2019 14:25, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies? Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over year and I'm considering alternatives.
Nowadays there's little to no advantage to having a "text only version"
of a site, provided that the site is reasonably accessible in and of itself.
Why do you feel you need to continue providing such a version?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 9:52AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
At my agency, text only is only an option if the site has a very strong
business case that a particular product must be used, there's no way to fix
it (including JS hackery), and the vendor refuses to cooperate. Look at it
from a risk perspective, are you more likely to get in trouble for a minor
issue or not keeping a secondary version updated? I would investigate how
to address those minor issues, vs trying to build out how to manage a
second version.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:43 AM Swift, Daniel P. < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Patrick:
>
> That's a valid point that I've been struggling with ... we've viewed it as
> a "safety net" believing that if there were any major issues, the third
> party would provide alternative access to our data. Our site is very
> accessible with minor issues that keep appearing. With accessibility
> lawsuits on the rise after the last few years, one can't help but be
> paranoid.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan Swift
> Senior Web Specialist
> University Communications and Marketing
> West Chester University
> 610.738.0589
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 10:28 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Text-Only Version of sites
>
> On 28/10/2019 14:25, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> > Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies?
> Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over
> year and I'm considering alternatives.
>
> Nowadays there's little to no advantage to having a "text only version"
> of a site, provided that the site is reasonably accessible in and of
> itself.
>
> Why do you feel you need to continue providing such a version?
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >
From: William O'Donnell
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 9:56AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
Good point cause like others said, there is not often a need for a text only page if other things are done correctly. Have a good day.
William F. O'Donnell, MPA, Social Media Manager
Open Access Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
631.804.1609
www.openaccesstech.com
> On Oct 28, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> At my agency, text only is only an option if the site has a very strong
> business case that a particular product must be used, there's no way to fix
> it (including JS hackery), and the vendor refuses to cooperate. Look at it
> from a risk perspective, are you more likely to get in trouble for a minor
> issue or not keeping a secondary version updated? I would investigate how
> to address those minor issues, vs trying to build out how to manage a
> second version.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:43 AM Swift, Daniel P. < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Patrick:
>>
>> That's a valid point that I've been struggling with ... we've viewed it as
>> a "safety net" believing that if there were any major issues, the third
>> party would provide alternative access to our data. Our site is very
>> accessible with minor issues that keep appearing. With accessibility
>> lawsuits on the rise after the last few years, one can't help but be
>> paranoid.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Dan Swift
>> Senior Web Specialist
>> University Communications and Marketing
>> West Chester University
>> 610.738.0589
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
>> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 10:28 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Text-Only Version of sites
>>
>> On 28/10/2019 14:25, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
>>> Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies?
>> Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over
>> year and I'm considering alternatives.
>>
>> Nowadays there's little to no advantage to having a "text only version"
>> of a site, provided that the site is reasonably accessible in and of
>> itself.
>>
>> Why do you feel you need to continue providing such a version?
>>
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> >> >> at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 10:25AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
On 28/10/2019 14:43, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> Patrick:
>
> That's a valid point that I've been struggling with ... we've viewed it as a "safety net" believing that if there were any major issues, the third party would provide alternative access to our data. Our site is very accessible with minor issues that keep appearing. With accessibility lawsuits on the rise after the last few years, one can't help but be paranoid.
The main issue is generally that automagic "text-only version" systems
take the "regular" site and just munge/rewrite its code a bit to make it
text-only. Meaning that any major accessibility problems from the
"regular" site won't be fixed by an automated text-only version either
(stupid example: if the main site lacks alternative text for content
images, a text-only system won't magically fix those either; less stupid
example: if the site uses some highly dynamic JS based widget to show
interactive grids of content, similar to Excel, an automated text-only
system won't magically turn this into a non-JS version that works well
as pure text-only version).
Now, looking at textise.org, it seems to/claims to do more than just
text-only on-the-fly conversion. It sounds suspiciously like they try to
monkey-patch your site via JS to paper over accessibility issues (and
most likely provide some sort of in-page "toolbar" widget for users to
then do things like change text size etc). The former is really just
trying to put lipstick on a pig...if there are accessibility issues,
they should be fixed at source. The latter is marginally useful to some
users, but arguably a lot of it falls within the realm of things that
users should sort out for themselves (with appropriate knowledge of
their own browser's options, or with their own assistive tech), as
they'll need it not just on your site but all sites.
And as ever, worth noting that any product that promises "compliance"
with WCAG out of the box with no changes needed on your own site's end
is generally..."overpromising" (to be diplomatic). It's snake oil...
Long story short: I'd suggest investing in auditing your site as it is
now, and fixing any identified issues / investing time in training, or
forcing 3rd party suppliers to provide accessible systems/content.
That's the more sustainable solution, rather than this sort of sticky
plaster "solution".
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Swift, Daniel P.
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 11:00AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks to everyone for your feedback, I appreciate it!
Dan Swift
Senior Web Specialist
University Communications and Marketing
West Chester University
610.738.0589
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 12:25 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Text-Only Version of sites
On 28/10/2019 14:43, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> Patrick:
>
> That's a valid point that I've been struggling with ... we've viewed it as a "safety net" believing that if there were any major issues, the third party would provide alternative access to our data. Our site is very accessible with minor issues that keep appearing. With accessibility lawsuits on the rise after the last few years, one can't help but be paranoid.
The main issue is generally that automagic "text-only version" systems take the "regular" site and just munge/rewrite its code a bit to make it text-only. Meaning that any major accessibility problems from the "regular" site won't be fixed by an automated text-only version either (stupid example: if the main site lacks alternative text for content images, a text-only system won't magically fix those either; less stupid
example: if the site uses some highly dynamic JS based widget to show interactive grids of content, similar to Excel, an automated text-only system won't magically turn this into a non-JS version that works well as pure text-only version).
Now, looking at textise.org, it seems to/claims to do more than just text-only on-the-fly conversion. It sounds suspiciously like they try to monkey-patch your site via JS to paper over accessibility issues (and most likely provide some sort of in-page "toolbar" widget for users to then do things like change text size etc). The former is really just trying to put lipstick on a pig...if there are accessibility issues, they should be fixed at source. The latter is marginally useful to some users, but arguably a lot of it falls within the realm of things that users should sort out for themselves (with appropriate knowledge of their own browser's options, or with their own assistive tech), as they'll need it not just on your site but all sites.
And as ever, worth noting that any product that promises "compliance"
with WCAG out of the box with no changes needed on your own site's end is generally..."overpromising" (to be diplomatic). It's snake oil...
Long story short: I'd suggest investing in auditing your site as it is now, and fixing any identified issues / investing time in training, or forcing 3rd party suppliers to provide accessible systems/content.
That's the more sustainable solution, rather than this sort of sticky plaster "solution".
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: L Snider
Date: Mon, Oct 28 2019 1:46PM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
Plus, I would add that not only is that going back to 1998 (I only did
them once because a client was adamant about it), but in my view it
may open up a legal challenge.
Not that this is the same thing, but separate isn't equal.. I would be
careful with this kind of solution, even though it would be secondary
to a more accessible website (just my opinion).
This lawsuit came to mind with Scandinavian Airlines
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/325416/sas-consent-order.pdf...
Cheers
Lisa
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:28 AM Patrick H. Lauke
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> On 28/10/2019 14:25, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> > Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies? Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over year and I'm considering alternatives.
>
> Nowadays there's little to no advantage to having a "text only version"
> of a site, provided that the site is reasonably accessible in and of itself.
>
> Why do you feel you need to continue providing such a version?
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > >
From: Swift, Daniel P.
Date: Tue, Oct 29 2019 5:23AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks for sharing this, Lisa. This PDF was incredibly helpful on a completely other level.
Thanks!
Dan Swift
Senior Web Specialist
University Communications and Marketing
West Chester University
610.738.0589
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of L Snider
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 3:46 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Text-Only Version of sites
Plus, I would add that not only is that going back to 1998 (I only did them once because a client was adamant about it), but in my view it may open up a legal challenge.
Not that this is the same thing, but separate isn't equal.. I would be careful with this kind of solution, even though it would be secondary to a more accessible website (just my opinion).
This lawsuit came to mind with Scandinavian Airlines https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/325416/sas-consent-order.pdf...
Cheers
Lisa
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:28 AM Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> On 28/10/2019 14:25, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> > Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies? Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over year and I'm considering alternatives.
>
> Nowadays there's little to no advantage to having a "text only version"
> of a site, provided that the site is reasonably accessible in and of itself.
>
> Why do you feel you need to continue providing such a version?
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>
From: L Snider
Date: Tue, Oct 29 2019 5:58AM
Subject: Re: Text-Only Version of sites
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Daniel,
Glad it helped! I am not a lawyer, so take my comments just as my 2
cents! Solutions like the one you mentioned may be just fine, and work
well for people...
My personal views only!
Cheers
Lisa
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:23 AM Swift, Daniel P. < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing this, Lisa. This PDF was incredibly helpful on a completely other level.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan Swift
> Senior Web Specialist
> University Communications and Marketing
> West Chester University
> 610.738.0589
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of L Snider
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 3:46 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Text-Only Version of sites
>
> Plus, I would add that not only is that going back to 1998 (I only did them once because a client was adamant about it), but in my view it may open up a legal challenge.
>
> Not that this is the same thing, but separate isn't equal.. I would be careful with this kind of solution, even though it would be secondary to a more accessible website (just my opinion).
>
> This lawsuit came to mind with Scandinavian Airlines https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/325416/sas-consent-order.pdf...
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:28 AM Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > On 28/10/2019 14:25, Swift, Daniel P. wrote:
> > > Does anyone have any experience with textise.org or similar companies? Our current solution has been significantly increasing prices year over year and I'm considering alternatives.
> >
> > Nowadays there's little to no advantage to having a "text only version"
> > of a site, provided that the site is reasonably accessible in and of itself.
> >
> > Why do you feel you need to continue providing such a version?
> >
> > P
> > --
> > Patrick H. Lauke
> >
> > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > > >