| In an attempt to make their sites accessible to all, | | | | Creating a separate accessible version can obviously |
| more and more websites are now offering text-only | | | | represents an extremely large time and money |
| versions of their sites. With the huge number of | | | | investment. This can be offset if the site is |
| inaccessible websites out there, any attempt to | | | | database-driven, although there's still a time |
| make a website accessible to one and all is highly | | | | investment involved in setting up this alternative |
| commendable. | | | | version - time that could have instead been spent |
| But is text-only the way forward? The W3C have | | | | making the primary site accessible to all. |
| this to say about alternative accessible sites: | | | | Less information |
| And if all else fails... If, after best efforts, you cannot | | | | Some text-only versions offer far less information |
| create an accessible page, provide a link to an | | | | and/or functionality than the primary version of the |
| alternative page. | | | | site. Manchester United's accessible version is a prime |
| Hmmm... so according to the W3C a separate | | | | example of this: the primary website features over |
| accessible site is OK, but they do use some pretty | | | | 100 choices in the navigation menu; the accessible |
| strong language to suggest that this should be | | | | version just eight. For a busy webmaster, having to |
| avoided wherever possible. They're probably right | | | | make updates to two versions of the same website |
| too, given the disadvantages of going down the | | | | can be a huge pain. |
| text-only route: | | | | If the website is 100% database driven then the |
| Text-only version may not be accessible | | | | separate text-only version will automatically be |
| The most ironic thing about text-only versions, is that | | | | updated with the primary version of the site. |
| often they don't even offer full accessibility. This | | | | Although database-driven sites are commonplace on |
| could be for a number of reasons, two of the most | | | | the web, it is very rare that every single page is |
| common being: | | | | drawn from the database. As such, even with a |
| - Non-descriptive link text: Visually impaired Internet | | | | database-driven site separate versions can often be |
| users can browse web pages by tabbing from one | | | | left behind. |
| link to the next. Link text such as 'click here' and | | | | Marginalisation of society |
| 'more', which may feature in a text-only version, | | | | The final point, and perhaps the most important. One |
| won't make any sense to them when doing this. | | | | of the most famous quotes about accessibility was |
| - Inaccessible forms: For optimal accessibility, prompt | | | | made by Tim Berners-Lee, the man who invented |
| text should be assigned to its form item, using the | | | | the Internet: |
| label for attribute. To check for this, a flashing cursor | | | | The power of the Web is in its universality. Access |
| should appear in each form box when the text next | | | | by everyone regardless of disability is an essential |
| to it is clicked. | | | | aspect. |
| Primary website may be inaccessible to site visitors | | | | Creating a separate version for web users with |
| One of the myths of web accessibility is that | | | | special needs can be seen as just one more way of |
| accessibility is only about blind and disabled users. | | | | them being marginalised from every day society. |
| Accessibility is actually about everyone being able to | | | | Having a separate accessible version has been |
| access your website, both disabled and non-disabled, | | | | famously likened to a restaurant providing a side door |
| regardless of the browsing technology they're using. | | | | down a back alley for disabled customers, because |
| For example, users accessing your website through | | | | the main entrance has a couple of stairs leading in to |
| WebTV, mobile phones, and PDAs, which have | | | | the restaurant. |
| limited support for large images, Flash and JavaScript, | | | | The idea of the Internet is that it's an inclusive |
| may not be able to access your site. Don't | | | | medium, which everyone should be able to use and |
| underestimate the importance of this: in 2008 alone | | | | access. Visually impaired individuals particularly can |
| an estimated 58 million PDAs will be sold (source: and | | | | now access a virtually unlimited source of information |
| one third of the world's population will own a wireless | | | | in a way that would never have been possible. |
| device (source: | | | | Text-only? No thanks! |
| Lost branding opportunity | | | | There are therefore so many reasons as to why a |
| Some users may only need to make small | | | | separate text-only version isn't a good idea. |
| adjustments to your site in order to be able to | | | | Additionally, there are a such huge number of |
| effectively use it. For example, a site visitor who | | | | benefits to having an accessible website that there's |
| needs to slightly resize the text on your site may | | | | no excuse for not trying to make your main website |
| have to use the text-only version if you don't allow | | | | accessible to everyone. |
| this is the main version. This person then won't be | | | | Certainly many big organisations are now working |
| exposed to your online image and branding, which | | | | towards offering accessible websites, which is highly |
| you've undoubtedly spent so long developing. | | | | commendable. So come on guys, let's keep working |
| Large time and money investment | | | | to make sure the Internet is fully inclusive. |