[hutzlibu]

I think the best way to provide accessibility ... would be a alternative accessibility mode, triggered by the browser, where you get only the plain text-info with no fancy stuff.

(I would love that for surfing with mobile browsers on bad connection, too)

[ctoth]

Some reasons why this is a bad idea:

Who implements it? Every individual website? then we're back where we started, not to mention that everybody's responsible means nobody's responsible, and consequently it won't happen.

The web, for better or worse, is transitioning to an app delivery platform. While a text-only mode of some type makes sense for a document-oriented web, it holds little appeal for app developers or consumers.

Formatting is important. On well marked up sites, I can navigate by heading, flick through form fields, and generally interact both efficiently and pleasantly with the content. Throwing all this out hardly seems like a good path forward.

[manyxcxi]

We have the ADA in America. It's part of the building code that you would have wheelchair ramps, wider stalls, hand rails at certain heights, and other accessibility features and every one of these rules must be implemented by anyone building or maintaining an open to the public/business space.

Of course it should be on the individual implementer to make it work. I wouldn't want someone else taking my concept and running it through an accessibility grinder without my input. It should also be on the individual company/team to decide if it not being accessible is something they're legally or morally okay with. I'd say that if you're building an in browser FPS, maybe there are some accessibility features you don't need because the group has been partially self selected by the fact their vision is good enough to want to play an FPS.

I did a lot of technical work for Target not that long after their big ADA lawsuit so EVERYTHING public facing was reviewed for accessibility. I'll be honest, it's typically not that hard to deliver a great 100% experience to people that do and don't need the accessibility features, you just have to learn what goes into it. And no, aria-hidden, isn't enough.

EDIT: I wanted to add that if you think accessibility means it can't look good, then you really don't know what's available today. You often don't have to make any trade offs to design if you don't want to.

[swampthinker]

That's a great idea, if there were such a thing as overseas homebuilders and small shops like the internet. But the reality is that the internet exists outside of the US, and the ADA cannot tackle every website.

[hutzlibu]

> Who implements it? Every individual website? then we're back where we started, not to mention that everybody's responsible means nobody's responsible, and consequently it won't happen.

Erm, as far as I know, that's the way the web is designed. The person who runs a site is responsible for it. And if this person does not care about accessibility , than that's the way it is.

But usually the owner want as much people as possible to be able to have access.

> While a text-only mode of some type makes sense for a document-oriented web, it holds little appeal for app developers or consumers.

And yes, of course I was refering to document-oriented web.

But apparently you got me totally wrong: I did not mean, "Text only" as in only text. I meant a proper formated html page. Just without fancy javascript and css-animations and so on. And while I actually like those, if they are well designed, I don't like them if I they are in the way of the content I want.

So I'd like a alternative mode. Easy to read on mobile as well on screen-readers etc. ...

[jdmichal]

It's pretty standard to provide visually-hidden elements in HTML which provide an accessible version of the data. Remember, screen readers are typically directly working with the DOM -- maybe through an abstraction layer provided by the browser and OS -- and can therefore see everything. You don't need to toggle what is visibly shown for screen readers to do their thing properly.