Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Hi Ben, cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in the pre-signoff phase I agree - that's why I questioned it. With my internal clients a little naive displaying this long list of 'pieces of functionality' broken down it conveys the impression that there's a lot of 'extra' work involved. To see this exact billable function in action check out: http://www.kbb.co.uk/intkbb08/ scroll to the footer where you'll see 'Text only version' which then takes you to: http://www.kbb.co.uk/cgi-events/betsie.pl I'm quering whether: a) it should appear on the breakdown in the pricing quote and b) whether this is actually good web standards practice (or outdated with little value) Thanks again, -- Rob 2008/11/21 Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you think it's a service I should be paying for? Although not expensive, I'm wondering why the 'functionality' needs to be highlighted at all? Surely, it's the same as saying we'll charge you separately for css or html markup? I'm naturally cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in the pre-signoff phase. Generally everything's a lot easier, more stuff is included and nothing is impossible.until the ink hits paper ;) In this instance I'd be asking them why the site needs a text-only alternative! It smells rather like they're going to build a table-based site or some other thing that's not accessible, then create a whole second version instead of doing the first one the right way. Alternatively they may just be setting up an easy way for users to disable styles. But you should get them to explain a bit further. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
2008/11/21 Rob Enslin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Ben, cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in the pre-signoff phase I agree - that's why I questioned it. With my internal clients a little naive displaying this long list of 'pieces of functionality' broken down it conveys the impression that there's a lot of 'extra' work involved. To see this exact billable function in action check out: http://www.kbb.co.uk/intkbb08/ scroll to the footer where you'll see 'Text only version' which then takes you to: http://www.kbb.co.uk/cgi-events/betsie.pl I'm quering whether: a) it should appear on the breakdown in the pricing quote and b) whether this is actually good web standards practice (or outdated with little value) From the link you've shown, it looks rather like the extra work is installing a perl script and linking to it in the footer. It is still a reasonable thing to list separately though, mostly since it's a relatively unusual feature. I certainly wouldn't assume that a text only converter would be included in a web build. Whether it's good practice... that's where it gets interesting. Accessbility guidelines allow for text only versions; but the absolute best practice is considered making one version of the site that's accessible in its own right. So it's slightly grey. It's certainly not harmful but it is a bit oldschool. Is it worth it? Well, if it doesn't cost much I'd be inclined to leave it in. The converted site has appropriate robots tags to avoid any negative issues in search rankings and it might benefit some users. But I'd be grilling them about the standard they plan to meet on the default version of the site :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Rob -
What I would interpret that to mean is that, by clicking on the link
in the footer, the visitor will be presented the content either
without any graphics or without any graphics or CSS. If it were
merely a matter of the CSS being removed, that shouldn't be a
billable item. However, if all graphics are removed from the page,
then you would have a different version of the page and that would be
billable, though it would likely involve less time to modify the
original template to have a text-only version.
In either case, I would seek detailed clarification of that line item
from their estimate.
At 01:53 PM 11/20/2008, you wrote:
Dear list,
I'm involved in a CMS-based website project where the supplier has
provided me with a breakdown of costs - before I sign it off.
One of the items highlighted in the breakdown is a footer-accessed
link for a text-only version. The supplier claims it's the same
technology used/developed by the BBC - called Betsie.
Do you think it's a service I should be paying for? Although not
expensive, I'm wondering why the 'functionality' needs to be
highlighted at all? Surely, it's the same as saying we'll charge you
separately for css or html markup?
Thoughts...
Thanks,
-- Rob
// Rob Enslin
// twitter.com/robenslin
// +44 (0)759 052 8890
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Tom ('Mas) Pickering - Web Developer Patti Gray - Web Designer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PourHouse Productions - http://pourhouse.com/
When He Reigns - It Pours )
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Rob Enslin wrote: I'm involved in a CMS-based website project where the supplier has provided me with a breakdown of costs - before I sign it off. One of the items highlighted in the breakdown is a footer-accessed link for a text-only version. The supplier claims it's the same technology used/developed by the BBC - called Betsie. In this day and age, a text-only version benefits nobody anymore. It's unnecessary, if the actual site is built properly. Ask the supplier to leave it out. Oh, Betsie is also quite antiquated and, incidentally, open source http://betsie.sourceforge.net/ 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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Text-only version
Betsie does a lot more than just display the page without styles. It was
designed to improve the accessibility of the crappy websites that were the
norm a decade ago, and it is less useful on a website that is coded properly
but it still has some value. The technical spec is at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/betsie/tech.html
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you can't
do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
Steve
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom ('Mas) Pickering
Sent: 20 November 2008 20:20
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Rob -
What I would interpret that to mean is that, by clicking on the link in the
footer, the visitor will be presented the content either without any
graphics or without any graphics or CSS. If it were merely a matter of the
CSS being removed, that shouldn't be a billable item. However, if all
graphics are removed from the page, then you would have a different version
of the page and that would be billable, though it would likely involve less
time to modify the original template to have a text-only version.
In either case, I would seek detailed clarification of that line item from
their estimate.
At 01:53 PM 11/20/2008, you wrote:
Dear list,
I'm involved in a CMS-based website project where the supplier has
provided me with a breakdown of costs - before I sign it off.
One of the items highlighted in the breakdown is a footer-accessed
link for a text-only version. The supplier claims it's the same
technology used/developed by the BBC - called Betsie.
Do you think it's a service I should be paying for? Although not
expensive, I'm wondering why the 'functionality' needs to be
highlighted at all? Surely, it's the same as saying we'll charge you
separately for css or html markup?
Thoughts...
Thanks,
-- Rob
// Rob Enslin
// twitter.com/robenslin
// +44 (0)759 052 8890
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Tom ('Mas) Pickering - Web Developer Patti Gray - Web Designer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PourHouse Productions - http://pourhouse.com/
When He Reigns - It Pours )
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Steve Green wrote: You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes. Unless you set your user agent to do that, because presumably that's something you'd need on all sites, not just one particular one. 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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Text-only version
Agreed. If you've got a user agent that does what you need, Betsie doesn't really add anything. If you don't have access to your own machine (and none of us do all of the time) then it does perform a useful function for some people. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: 20 November 2008 20:54 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version Steve Green wrote: You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes. Unless you set your user agent to do that, because presumably that's something you'd need on all sites, not just one particular one. 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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Steve Green wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
CSS is quite capable of that.
The following works fine in Opera 9.62 (the only browser I've bothered
to test for this proof of concept).
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd;
titleReplace Image With Alt/title
style type=text/css
img {
height: 0; width: 0;
}
img::after {
content : attr(alt);
}
/style
h1Replace Image With Alt/h1
div
img src=http://dorward.me.uk/images/wheel/logo.png;
alt=Dorward Online
/div
--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes. Does this solve some problem? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Text-only version
Yes it does. It allows the creation of a text-only version for people who need one but don't have a suitable user agent on the machine that they currently have access to. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: 20 November 2008 21:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes. Does this solve some problem? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Text-only version
Yes, of course you can do stuff like this, although it gets pretty ugly and
bloated if you have a lot of images. The point of Betsie is that it can be
retrofitted to existing websites without the need to modify any code.
It also caters for people who are working on a machine that is not
configured to their needs and cannot be altered e.g. in an Internet cafe or
a locked-down machine in someone else's office. Your image replacement
technique does not cater for these situations unless you also add a style
switcher, but that appears to be taboo in this list.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: 20 November 2008 21:06
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Steve Green wrote:
You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you
can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes.
CSS is quite capable of that.
The following works fine in Opera 9.62 (the only browser I've bothered to
test for this proof of concept).
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd;
titleReplace Image With Alt/title
style type=text/css
img {
height: 0; width: 0;
}
img::after {
content : attr(alt);
}
/style
h1Replace Image With Alt/h1
div
img src=http://dorward.me.uk/images/wheel/logo.png;
alt=Dorward Online
/div
--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Hi Patrick, Appreciate the feedback - thought as much, but always worth checking with the pros. Best, --Rob On 20 Nov 2008, at 20:39, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Enslin wrote: I'm involved in a CMS-based website project where the supplier has provided me with a breakdown of costs - before I sign it off. One of the items highlighted in the breakdown is a footer-accessed link for a text-only version. The supplier claims it's the same technology used/developed by the BBC - called Betsie. In this day and age, a text-only version benefits nobody anymore. It's unnecessary, if the actual site is built properly. Ask the supplier to leave it out. Oh, Betsie is also quite antiquated and, incidentally, open source http://betsie.sourceforge.net/ 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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Text-only version
I see where you're coming from, but the logical extension of your argument is that there are never any instances where it is necessary to use images to convey information. That is certainly often the case, but can we say 'never'? You are not always able to make sites as semantically pure as you might wish (unless you are prepared to walk away from a lot of work). For instance I am currently working with a group of large retail brands where the brand managers will absolutely not permit the degradation of the visual appearance by replacing the graphical representations of text with real text. We're not starting with a clean sheet, so a jump to a pure semantic website just isn't going to happen in one step (at least not in the timescale they are looking for). Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: 20 November 2008 21:33 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Text-only version On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can do a lot of what Betsie does using CSS but the one thing you can't do is replace the images with their 'alt' attributes. Does this solve some problem? On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes it does. It allows the creation of a text-only version for people who need one but don't have a suitable user agent on the machine that they currently have access to. I'm still not seeing the problem for the solution. If you can't see images, does the alt text really help? I don't mean to sound annoying, I'm just trying to see the point of using Betsie on a semantic website. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Text-only version
Do you think it's a service I should be paying for? Although not expensive, I'm wondering why the 'functionality' needs to be highlighted at all? Surely, it's the same as saying we'll charge you separately for css or html markup? I'm naturally cynical/suspicious about what suppliers claim in the pre-signoff phase. Generally everything's a lot easier, more stuff is included and nothing is impossible.until the ink hits paper ;) In this instance I'd be asking them why the site needs a text-only alternative! It smells rather like they're going to build a table-based site or some other thing that's not accessible, then create a whole second version instead of doing the first one the right way. Alternatively they may just be setting up an easy way for users to disable styles. But you should get them to explain a bit further. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
