Text-only is not accessible

Text-only websites are not suited to all users with impairments. Although they are often ideal for users who are blind and use a screen reader, accessibility goes far beyond this user group.

Users may also have difficulty seeing things if:

• they are partially sighted
• they have poor display equipment
• there is glare from ambient lighting
• they have turned off image loading to reduce delays on a slow connection

But this does not mean that the text only version is best for them. Partially sighted users often like coloured text and graphics, as long as they are big enough to see and they can control the size and colours to suit their needs. Graphics, colour and layout may actually help partially sighted users to find things on a page, so linear, text only pages can be more difficult for them to use.

Users may have difficulty understanding content and functionality if:

• they have a learning impairment
• they are tired or stressed
• they have a low level of literacy in the language used

A text only version will not suit these users at all. Their problem is caused by complexity and inconsistency. Images and animation can be very helpful to them as aids to understanding text and functionality.

Users may have difficulty using navigation and functionality if they have a physical disability or an injury that makes it difficult or impossible to use a mouse. But they can still benefit from the added functionality and visual appeal provided using JavaScript or Flash, as long as they can operate it from the keyboard.

Users may also be impaired by having older hardware, operating system and browser software, which may not have the capability to run plugins and scripts. But this does not mean they can cope with nothing more than plain linear text.

The text only approach can result in two poorly usable extremes

Web site owners sometimes approach the issue of accessibility by providing two versions of the site. The full blown "bells and whistles" version might use images, colour, sound, complex layout, JavaScript, Flash and non-standard interaction elements. The alternative "accessible" version throws away all of this and contains only linear text and hyperlinks.

This all or nothing approach is easy, but fails to take into account that users are infinitely variable combinations of abilities and impairments. It encourages designers to do whatever they like in the "regular" version, safe in the knowledge that the text only version provides for people who cannot use it. The result is often two minority versions, each of which is suitable for only a small percentage of the user population.

There are two mistaken beliefs at work here:

• A text only version provides well for all "impaired" users
• Most users are not impaired and will be able to use the full blown version

We have already seen that the text only version does not suit everyone. But many users may be forced to use it. Designers may not realise how many users are excluded by the combination of access barriers that can arise on the full blown version. One group of users may be excluded because it uses JavaScript. Another group because the text is too small to read and cannot be resized. Another because understanding the meaning of the output relies on red/green colour differentiation. Another because the non-standard look and feel is difficult to comprehend. And so on. The likelihood that a given user will fall into at least one of these groups is high, so the cumulative effect of these barriers is massive.

The lesser version?

Text only websites suffer from other problems too. Having to maintain two versions with the same content and functionality is more difficult and often one gets out of synch with the other. Because it is seen as a minority offering, the text only version may have less facilities than the "standard" version.

There is also an issue of user perception. People who have impairments, particularly people with disabilities, often have a history of being marginalised and segregated. A text only site may be seen as another example of segregation. Even if it is kept up to date, provides the full functionality and is well suited to their use, previous experience may lead them to suspect or assume that they are getting a lesser version. This can be very alienating and leads to feelings of exclusion.

Separate versions are not necessary

So if a text only version is not the answer, then what is? The answer is to make the standard version accessible. Except in rare circumstances, it is possible to provide a single site which is accessible to all users without losing any functionality or design quality. That is because, in most cases, making a page accessible means adding something, not removing it.

The simplest example is the "alt tag" on images. You don't need to throw away the image as long as you add a text equivalent in the alt attribute. Then sighted users can enjoy the image and non-sighted users can read the equivalent text description.

Similarly, it's fine to use a red button for Stop and a green button for Go, as long as you label them with the text "Stop" and "Go", for people who cannot distinguish red from green.

It's fine to use tables for layout, as long as the reading order makes sense when linearised.

It's even fine to use JavaScript or Flash, as long as the equivalent information and functionality is also provided in an accessible format.

The point is not to avoid using these techniques for presentation and interaction, but to avoid relying on them. A text-only version of a web page should be created only when there is no other way to make the content accessible, or when it offers significant advantages over the main version for certain types of disabilities.