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 b) whether this is actually good web standards practice (or outdated with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 :)


--- <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

Reply via email to