11–20 of 63 posts
(Any takers?)
Model 1: ecommerce. The website exists to sell your product. Having an alternate version is a simple cost/benefit decision: will people buy your thing from a low-overhead site? This may be combined with a mobile-friendly rendition.
Model 2: advertising. The website exists to catch attention long enough to show ads. You need seven tracking systems and eleven ad networks; all of them need JS and graphics and won't make money for you otherwise.
Model 3: public service. The focus is on providing information, not on making a sale or showing ads. The benefit of a low-overhead version is clear, but you need to keep the costs low, so you can't spend much extra time or money on it.
Model 4: SAAS. The website is the service, so user satisfaction is the top concern. Understand how your users want to use your service, and provide that for them.
I guess that it is too much work, and perhaps because of ads. However, I believe there should be a project for a server that does a url screengrab and runs it through some scanning and OCR and perhaps some AI, that accomplishes what you are asking. (Any takers?)
I guess that it is too much work, and perhaps because of ads. However, I believe there should be a project for a server that does a url screengrab and runs it through some scanning and OCR and perhaps some AI, that accomplishes what you are asking. (Any takers?)
Readability already parses web sites to provide a simple reader view: https://readability.com/
Thinking about it, I would be ready to use such a site for the "unreadable" sites.
This reminds me of the rarely-used print stylesheet[0]. In fact, the only place I've ever seen it in use is on websites run by the Dutch government (perhaps other governments do so too, but I've never needed to check them out). EDIT: A bit of online searching mainly shows people *complaining8 about print sheets, so perhaps I'm completely out of the loop and simply haven't printed anything in a long time. It's not muc…
Not the answer to the question, but that particular site is somewhat (a little of the text and one or two images) readable without the JavaScript if you turn the styles off. I've just tried it with JS, actually it's a very little of the whole content.
I think frameworks have inverted things: the easiest approach these days is to load the default config of some framework/CMS, which will make heavy use of Javascript/images/CSS/etc. in order to entice developers to use it (otherwise, why use a framework at all ;) ). In this world, turning off a feature takes more effort than leaving it on, and we end up with ideas like special "text only" alternatives.
I think there's definitely a burden on the developers of frameworks to make them degrade as gracefully as possible. Of course, this isn't always possible (especially those designed to be completely in client-side JS), but in those instances where it is possible, it can have a large impact. For example, if the developer of some popular Wordpress theme spent a little extra effort on graceful fallbacks, it would improve the situation for all sites using that theme.
Disclaimer: I used to develop a CMS with crazy-strict adherence to, among other things, accessibility standards ;)