Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
heretic wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong with providing a text only alternative (if there was, we'd have to outlaw alternative stylesheets too). The problem generally comes from that version missing content or getting out of date; plus the human problem of getting lazy on the default site thinking the text site will bail you out. Another importantproblem is that all too often sites have a text-only option *instead* of making their main site accessible. Text only has some edge benefits to blind/visually impaired users, but it still does not address issues that can arise for deaf users, users with learning difficulties (on the contrary...the sheer reliance on text makes it even less accessible in many cases), etc. Or take a user who has 20/20 eyesight, but can't use a mouse because of mobility impairment. If the main site is not keyboard accessible (lots of yummy onmouseover, onmouseclick, DHTML drag sliders/scrollers, inaccessible flash), it's not right that they should go to the text-only version only because at least that one has a modicum of keyboard accessibility... Anyway, sorry for the belated rant on the subject... -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
On 7/9/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another importantproblem is that all too often sites have a text-only option *instead* of making their main site accessible. Thanks for bringing this up again... after further discussion with the client I discovered that they wanted the text-only version so their staff on satelite phones in remote areas could access info... which is fair enough! We'll give them a totally stripped down version using the CMS. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
Cheat! Use a styleswitcher to to display your 'text-only' courier-based stylesheet :o) Richard - Original Message - From: Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain that (and what we propose instead) but I'm kinda lost for the right words. Does anyone know of a good online article/resource to help me out? Something specific to Australian legislation would be fantastic. Thanks! -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
On 6/30/05, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use a styleswitcher to to display your 'text-only' courier-based stylesheet We *could* do that... but I'd rather educate the client :) To answer my own question, soon after posting (isn't that always the way) I found this very good article on Webcredible: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/text-only.shtml -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
Good article: http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2005/01/server-side-accessibility Cheers Jeff Lowder Accessibility 1st Ph: 02 9570 9875 | Mobile: 0419 350 760 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Website: http://www.accessibility1st.com.au From: Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:55:11 +0800 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain that (and what we propose instead) but I'm kinda lost for the right words. Does anyone know of a good online article/resource to help me out? Something specific to Australian legislation would be fantastic. Thanks! -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
Good article, Kay! I'd try sending them there, but in the end it's a matter of balancing some of the following things: 1. spending time educating the client 2. maintaining an acceesible approach to design 3. Runing a business If after trying to educate the client (a 10 minute phone conversation you're NOT going to get paid for), and they still want a text only page just because we think it's best, then cave in... But cave in your way - make a 'text-only' looking stylesheet and charge them for the work! You maintain standards and accessibility as well as get paid! Alternatively make a text-only copy of the whoel site and charge them double as it's twice the work than the original scope. ... I'm just at the point of screaming when it comes to corporate clients who 'know best' about things and insist on doing it their way. Fine - i'll explain the pros and cons and give my professional, experienced and informed opinion. If they throw it in the bin and ask me to do anything extra, then they can pay for it. I'll bet good money that if you tell them it's going to be an extra $2500 for a text-only version, or $250 to whip up a styleswitcher and CSS file then they'll go for the cheap option every single time. In this case, it happens to co-incide with an accessible approach. Just my *somewhat frazzled at End of Financial Year* two cents.. :o) R - Original Message - From: Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad On 6/30/05, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use a styleswitcher to to display your 'text-only' courier-based stylesheet We *could* do that... but I'd rather educate the client :) To answer my own question, soon after posting (isn't that always the way) I found this very good article on Webcredible: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/text-only.shtml -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
Kay, I'll try to summarize a paragraph on this topic from one Czech accessibility book: - having a page containing only text still doesn't implicate it's accessibile - using text version often leads to forgetting all the rules of good web on the main site and placing more barriers there - if the main site is not accessible, it is hard to find a link to the text-olny version - paralell version may simplify the issue to an idea that accessible = for blind visitors, which isn't true and leeds to constraining other visitors who may use the accessible site - the need of a separate maintenance of the text-only version often ends in not-so-accurate content and makes it worthless. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
On 6/30/05, Richard Czeiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If after trying to educate the client (a 10 minute phone conversation you're NOT going to get paid for), and they still want a text only page just because we think it's best, then cave in... Actually, in this case the client has had someone write the tender for them - they quite freely admit that they know nothing and are looking for guidance. But I know your pain, we have lots of we know best clients too :) Thanks Jan too - that's a pretty concise summary. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
We're doing a tender for a client that has requested a text-only version of the site, for accessibility reasons. Now, *I* know that that's ridiculous and text-only is not an acceptable alternative to an accessible site, but I need some good verbage/references to explain that (and what we propose instead) but I'm kinda lost for the right words. Does anyone know of a good online article/resource to help me out? Something specific to Australian legislation would be fantastic. There's nothing inherently wrong with providing a text only alternative (if there was, we'd have to outlaw alternative stylesheets too). The problem generally comes from that version missing content or getting out of date; plus the human problem of getting lazy on the default site thinking the text site will bail you out. Text sites are ok if they are generated automatically (so they don't get out of date) and the original site doesn't bury everything in Flash or something. In the long run, alternative stylesheets should replace them. If you can't auto-generate the text site, then you can probably defeat the idea based on doubling maintenance costs for the entire life of the site. The ROI on a compliant site with graceful degradation should come out to be far higher than trying to maintain the entire site twice over. I'm not sure that I've seen much online on the topic, though. So I guess this didn't really help, sorry :( h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] looking for an accessibility reference on why text-only is bad
G'day I'm not sure that I've seen much online on the topic, though. So I guess this didn't really help, sorry :( http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-alt-pages 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1] Note: Content developers should only resort to alternative pages when other solutions fail... ...Before resorting to an alternative page, reconsider the design of the original page; making it accessible is likely to improve it for all users. ...Last resort... Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
