Should Sites Be Accessible Or Provide A Text-Only Alternative

In many cases we can see web sites linking to a text-only version. Both Section 508 and WCAG allow the use of text-only alternatives, as opposed to making a site accessible by default. While it seems to be very appealing in certain cases in order to take a shortcut to full accessibility, it appears to cause much more trouble than good. Besides, it is also not elective to use a text-only version, it is an option in certain circumstances.

First, let's look at what Section 508 and WCAG 2.0 say about this issue.

Section 508

According to Section 508, 1194.22 (K):

A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes.

Often times this standard is misinterpreted. A text-only page is only allowed when there isn't any other way of providing the same information or functionality. Many times I have seen solutions where a text-only page was set up referring to this standard, but not considering if the same functionality or information could be incorporated into the main site.

WCAG

According to WCAG 2.0 1.3.1:

Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text. (Level A)

WCAG 2.0 is a little more forgiving, allowing to make information available textually or programmatically. Theoretically, based on this guideline, designers can choose to provide a text alternative for any information, without having to provide a rational reason.

Is a text-only solution efficient to create an accessible site?

When a text-only version is considered for accessibility purposes, probably the main reason is that the information currently does not exist as text, because it is an image, for example. So, regardless of the solution, text needs to be provided. Once the text is available, the biggest challenge is solved, in most cases it is possible to integrate the text into the original site.

It is also possible that the text is available, but it is difficult to provide it in an accessible way. For example, the CMS the site uses is not accessible. In this case, content managers need to make sure that all information exists on both sites, and the text-only is fully accessible. It is quite a task to ensure that all information is updated especially when there is a constant growth and update of data. On the long run, it is most often more efficient to put the effort into designing the original site to be accessible, and worry about updating only one set of information.

Also, a text-only site gives an impression that if something has to be made text-only, something else is most likely not accessible. And based on experience, as in many cases the text only version does not reflect the exact same information that is available on the original site, people might just go and look for the same information somewhere else if available.

It is also important to consider that people with disabilities should not have to access information especially designed for them. In ideal circumstances, they should be able to use the default data and functionality, the same way as anybody else.