Re: Revisited Download Time?

Yes you're right.
I am totally blind so I don't care at all that I can't "see" the graphics.
I don't like the graphics because they just make the page load slower, so
I've disabled the pictures from the browser.

However, when I visit a page, I like to choose to see the page for sighted
people, because as you've told, I think that those pages specially made for
the disabled are not updated too often.

Well, I told that another text only page could be made if the site owner
doesn't want to make a big effort, and it is something better than nothing
anyway.
I would prefer such a site than a site that contains just Java applets which
are not accessible at all for a screen reader.

Teddy,
Teddy's Center: http://teddy.fcc.ro/
Email: orasnita(at)home.ro

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Smillie" <dms(at)zetnet.co.uk>
To: "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita(at)home.ro>; <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Revisited Download Time?


----- Original Message -----
From: Octavian Rasnita <orasnita(at)home.ro>


> Or if this is too complicated, it could be made another single link on
the
> first page with a text only version for the disabled people.
> That version of the site could be made very easy, because it doesn't
need
> including graphics, special formatting, etc.

Well, that's one way of tackling it, but we generally advise against it
unless there really is no other way of making a particular feature
accessible.  I mean - if you're fully or partially sighted, and simply
can't use a mouse, would you really feel you were being well served if
you found that the only way provided for you to access a site is via a
text only version of the site?  No pictures or attractive visual
presentation for you - off you go to the text only pages.  That's how it
feels at the receiving end, anyway, even if that's not how it's
intended.  Particularly if all that is needed is some re-programming to
make a site accessible using a mouse *or* a keyboard.

Creating a separate text only version of a website has a major drawback,
too, unless the site uses a content management system that generates web
pages on the fly - it increases the time and resources required to
update or change the site, since each page is duplicated, and so twice
as many pages have to be updated or changed each time.  Making the
original site accessible leaves you with just that one site to maintain,
rather than two sites.  From experience, what tends to happen when text
only sites consist of static pages is that, when resources are tight,
the main site is updated and the text only site is neglected, and gets
more and more out of date.  I've seen sites where the text only version,
originally created with the best of intentions, hasn't been updated in
over 6 months, whereas it's been clear that the main site is being
updated several times a week.  That's as off-putting for the disabled
visitor as a completely inaccessible site, since, albeit
unintentionally, they are being given the message that they're not
welcome or regarded as being as important as non-disabled visitors.

So, I'd suggest offering a text only version as an option for users of
speech or braille output software if one has the resources to maintain a
second version of a site (or if the pages are generated on the fly using
a content management system), but it's probably best not to see it as
the means of making a site accessible to everyone.

Cheers,
Donna
--
Donna Smillie
Best Practice Officer (Accessible Websites)
Royal National Institute of the Blind, UK

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA