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 The problem generally comes from that version missing content or getting out of date; plus the human problem of getting lazy on the default site thinking the text site will bail you out.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 ******************************************************
