Replies: 9 comments
Text-only versions should be killed off, they're almost always a pointless distraction put there because the main site is poorly built.
Amazon's the worst culprit, with a text-only site with markup as bad as the normal site. The absence of images does nothing to aid its accessibility/compatibility.
It's depressing that the highest profile ecommerce site on the Web has such amateurish HTML (would you hire a developer who's still using font tags? I wouldn't) and poor accessibility. They'd never leave any other aspect of their business in such a shoddy state.
Posted by Matt Round @ 04/11/2002 07:25 AM EST
Text-only versions should be killed off, they're almost always a pointless distraction put there because the main site is poorly built.
Amazon's the worst culprit, with a text-only site with markup as bad as the normal site. The absence of images does nothing to aid its accessibility/compatibility.
It's depressing that the highest profile ecommerce site on the Web has such amateurish HTML (would you hire a developer who's still using font tags? I wouldn't) and poor accessibility. They'd never leave any other aspect of their business in such a shoddy state.
Posted by Matt Round @ 04/11/2002 07:25 AM EST
I would hire a developer who still uses font tags. I have no reason to abandon dated technology as long as I still have customers using that technology. I'm not a control freak, so the lack of precision control with FONT SIZE = +1 doesn't bother me. Newer browsers won't ditch the old code for a long time.
I have no trouble finding FONT tags and tables on corporate sites (the folks most able to redesign for accessibility). It's not exactly gone the way of the dinosaur. Even this article points out issues with doing things "the right way." If I use EM or % for text, IE 3 interprets it wrong. That dumb old FONT tag works fine for everyone though, and as long as I use it right, the text is resizeable.
A site built to W3C WAI specs is still usually a confusing site for blind users (as an example). A blind relative of mine using JAWS says table-based pages are no more difficult to navigate than sites purporting to be accessible. We have a long way to go in understanding these users. She also doesn't have an objection to a text-only site, as long as some thought goes into the design and it's not a straight text dump.
It's interesting that the WAI specs are littered with this curious little phrase... "until user agents." There is a world of work that browser makers need to do, but I do not see any media reports or pressure on them about that. It's all about the work designers need to do. That's sad. We will spend years educating designers (we already have and we're not even close!) on how to build accessible sites, and then one day, when the browser makers get off their asses, the rules will change.
Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 04/11/2002 09:46 AM EST
"I have no trouble finding FONT tags and tables on corporate sites (the folks most able to redesign for accessibility). It's not exactly gone the way of the dinosaur."
Most corporate sites have shown little interest in the quality of their HTML or in accessibility, so I certainly wouldn't advise following their example.
In my view font tags became redundant years ago, and anyone who isn't actively trying to make as much use of XHTML & CSS as possible is doing themselves and their clients a great disservice. Using valid markup and CSS for layout certainly doesn't make a site accessible in itself, but is a better foundation and allows the developer to arrange content/navigation within the source to suit non-visual/graphical browsers and even insert elements specifically for such browsers.
The 'rules' are increasingly focussed on XML-based document formats and CSS for formatting (visually, aurally, etc).
Posted by Matt Round @ 04/11/2002 08:11 PM EST
"I have no trouble finding FONT tags and tables on corporate sites (the folks most able to redesign for accessibility). It's not exactly gone the way of the dinosaur."
Most corporate sites have shown little interest in the quality of their HTML or in accessibility, so I certainly wouldn't advise following their example.
In my view font tags became redundant years ago, and anyone who isn't actively trying to make as much use of XHTML & CSS as possible is doing themselves and their clients a great disservice. Using valid markup and CSS for layout certainly doesn't make a site accessible in itself, but is a better foundation and allows the developer to arrange content/navigation within the source to suit non-visual/graphical browsers and even insert elements specifically for such browsers.
The 'rules' are increasingly focussed on XML-based document formats and CSS for formatting (visually, aurally, etc).
Posted by Matt Round @ 04/11/2002 08:11 PM EST
Well, all I know is that sites I made three years ago still hold up today. They still look and function the same way. They will continue functioning 5 years from now. I'm told they are as usable for blind users as sites made to current specs (perhaps aided because I'm a minimalist). As long as there are Netscape 4 and IE 3+ users running around, I have no problem designing *for the user* and not for a spec standard. The proof is in the pudding.
Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 04/11/2002 09:13 PM EST
If you're a minimalist then you're _really_ missing out, believe me. Your source code could consist of nothing but a few DIVs combined with completely plain markup. And don't forget the downsides to sticking with older technology.
(I always get argumentative about this topic as I gradually made the switch a couple of years ago and haven't looked back since; we now follow the same approach in my day job and our puddings taste better. Web standards aren't about webloggers following a pointless fad, there are real benefits for users, clients & developers)
Posted by Matt Round @ 04/12/2002 02:47 AM EST
If you're a minimalist then you're _really_ missing out, believe me. Your source code could consist of nothing but a few DIVs combined with completely plain markup. And don't forget the downsides to sticking with older technology.
(I always get argumentative about this topic as I gradually made the switch a couple of years ago and haven't looked back since; we now follow the same approach in my day job and our puddings taste better. Web standards aren't about webloggers following a pointless fad, there are real benefits for users, clients & developers)
Posted by Matt Round @ 04/12/2002 02:47 AM EST
Whether newer code is easier to manage is not my point. I learn new things when I want to achieve something new for the user. Abandoning older browsers is not something I'm willing to do right now just for my own coding comfort.
I haven't heard the compelling argument for how current specs significantly help more of my users than are hurt them by abandoning old code. I'm certain that will one day be true, but not yet. I need to be sold on this, because there are many more developers embracing old code for far more selfish reasons.
Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 04/12/2002 09:23 AM EST