You are correct. The text versions were present for screen readers.
Instead of just using good markup in the first place?
Good markup can't handle it all, text-only mode allows for stuff like having a transcript instead of a video with a link to a transcript. Text-only mode is even available on the new site:
Instead of just using good markup in the first place?
Good markup can't handle it all, text-only mode allows for stuff like having a transcript instead of a video with a link to a transcript. Text-only mode is even available on the new site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/accessibility/ "In addition to the features that make the graphics version of the site more accessible, a text-only version provides added convenience for users." I'm not sure how to access it though, maybe…
I'm going to disagree. Let me share some background, I spent several years helping to write the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 spec. The original WCAG 1.0 as well as Section 508 specify an alternate text only site as a viable method.
Real world experience shows us those sites quickly fall behind. Text-alternatives are necessary for multimedia content, text-only sites as an alternative to good markup aren't.
ok, am I the only fool who got a bit teary eyed when going through whitehouse.gov? Whether you agree with his politics or not, you have to admit that he is going to change the way we interact with our government.
"President Obama started his career as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he saw firsthand what people can do when they come together for a common cause"
The main big block of text next to the picture is a jpg, and looks like it has a ton of compression artifacts. tsk tsk! =) Other than that it's an awesome site, definitely the best government agency site I've ever seen.
Those aren't compress... wait.. yessss that's exactly what they are. Compression artifacts. Move along. You didn't see nuthin'.
Good markup can't handle it all, text-only mode allows for stuff like having a transcript instead of a video with a link to a transcript. Text-only mode is even available on the new site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/accessibility/ "In addition to the features that make the graphics version of the site more accessible, a text-only version provides added convenience for users." I'm not sure how to access it though, maybe…
I'm going to disagree. Let me share some background, I spent several years helping to write the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 spec. The original WCAG 1.0 as well as Section 508 specify an alternate text only site as a viable method. Real world experience shows us those sites quickly fall behind. Text-alternatives are necessary for multimedia content, text-only sites as an alternative to good markup aren't.
Fall behind in what sense? Obviously, if the multimedia content isn't transcribed quickly enough, then that makes sense, but I would also guess less consequential than if a given page weren't transformed from 'marked up' to 'text', but in the latter case, if the backend is dynamic, and just changing the output format, why would it fall behind?
I'm going to disagree. Let me share some background, I spent several years helping to write the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 spec. The original WCAG 1.0 as well as Section 508 specify an alternate text only site as a viable method. Real world experience shows us those sites quickly fall behind. Text-alternatives are necessary for multimedia content, text-only sites as an alternative to good markup aren't.
Fall behind in what sense? Obviously, if the multimedia content isn't transcribed quickly enough, then that makes sense, but I would also guess less consequential than if a given page weren't transformed from 'marked up' to 'text', but in the latter case, if the backend is dynamic, and just changing the output format, why would it fall behind?
People just don't want to maintain 2 sites. Extra features and sections often don't get updated to the text only rendering.
I guess my point is that screen readers like (even prefer) well written markup. A text-only site is a kickback from when they couldn't and the accessibility guidelines were written to deal with that.