Re: text menus vs graphical menus

Jeremy Pratte <artman(at)clearpages.com> wrote on Thursday, November 07,
2002 9:19 PM Re: text menus vs graphical menus:

> This is a no-brainer for me:
> graphical menus, definitely.
>
> The only accessibility concern to have with using graphics vs. text is
> people using text-based browswers.  Well, folks, we've entered the
> 21st century and there are probably only five people out there still
> only surfing with text-based browsers, or browsing with images
> turned off.

Good grief - that is so untrue.

What about those using speech or braille output (i.e. blind people)?
What about those with sight problems who need strong clear contrast and
larger text?  What about those with sight problems who use screen
magnification software to enlarge what's on the page - have you ever
seen what graphics (and in particular graphics of text) look like when
enlarged to 10 times their normal size?  What about those on slow
connections or slow/expensive hotel phone connections who just want to
zap in, get the info and zap out again, so switch graphics off for
speed?  What about those on slow, cranky mobile connections who switch
graphics off for the same reason?

Graphics are an important aspect of web design, but they're hardly the
be all and end all of design!

> And don't be worried about load time.  Any web graphics professional
> worth his salt knows how to make buttons that are small, consist of
> only a few colors, and can optimize them to 1 or 2k, or even less than
> 1k!

Any web *design* professional worth his or her salt knows how to design
web sites and web pages that will work for a wide range of people using
a wide range of technologies and access speeds.

> Using a
> grahpical menu can only add a few paltry seconds to load time on a
> dialup, and a few miliseconds to load time on anybody using broadband.
> And in a few years, just about everybody will be on broadband.

"Just about everyone..."?!!

> Let's face it.  Graphical menus look prettier, neater, more
> professional, and progressive than text menus, even ones using a css
> hover (which doesn't work in Netscape anyway).

Only for those hung up on how "cool" their pages look.  As far as
"professional" goes, a blind CEO isn't going to think much of the
"professionalism" of the web designer who creates sites that he or she
hears as "image image image link-image link-image image image"!

> And using graphical menus allows you to do nice
> things like mouseovers.  Personally, and I know this is strictly
> opinion, 99% of the time when I see a website that's using text
> menus, I think the website looks unprofessional, dinosaured, cheap,
> and, well, pardon the term, crap.

Personally, when I see a website that doesn't work or doesn't work
easily for a whole load of people, I regard it as unprofessional,
dinosaured, cheap and crap.

> And if you're really worried about those five dudes out there who
> refuse to let go of their text browsers, you can always do alt-text
> on your images.

Any web designer who truly takes that design approach is going to find
it very difficult to get any government website contracts in the US, UK
& Europe or Australia.  They expect and require web designers to
understand the underlying principles of good, flexible, accessible
design.  And so do an increasing number of commercial companies, because
they've realised that that way they maximise the potential audience for
their site.

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

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