Rationale
Text only versions of a website should be used as a last resort. Even the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) do not recommend providing text only versions. Their guidelines say "only after best efforts you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page". This clearly states that a text-only site is not a solution in itself, only a text alternative for a single page or piece of content that can not be made accessible ie a Flash animation.
Providing an alternate text-only version of a website can actually reinforce the sense of exclusion that people with disabilities already feel. In addition to this text-only versions of websites tend not to be equivalent versions of graphical and media rich versions. Often promotional or advertising information is not included in text-only versions
Maintaining dual versions of a website can become costly. If not running on CMS (Content Management System) text-only versions make more work in the long run as both versions need to be updated simultaneously.
A frequent concern expressed by designers is that the brand, look and feel of a graphics version may be lost when made accessible. This is not the case. Images with good ALT text and sites making good use of colour can benefit all users. One group that benefits in particular from an accessible graphics version are users with cognitive impairments, such as dyslexia. Colour and images are a boost to accessibility and some users with low vision, for example, may argue that a text only version is harder to read.
Techniques
-
A graphics site and its content can be made fully accessible without resorting to a text only version. A single version of your site is easier to maintain.
-
Text alternatives should be provided for individual content or functionality that can not be made accessible. For example a video, piece of audio or a complex Flash movie.
Compliance with WCAG 1.0
-
11.4 If, after best efforts you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]
For more information on techniques visit the
Web Accessibility Initiative techniques page.