[dahauns]

Here's the Austrian: https://teletext.orf.at/

And it might be tempting to brush this off as just an anachronism to amuse ourselves with, but IMO this undervalues it quite a bit.

For example, the Austrian teletext still has almost a million daily users (in a country of 9 million) - let that sink in.

And there's a good reason: Conceptually, Teletext (at least when it's well maintained) is the antithesis to modern information media. There's neither room nor want for clickbait headlines, padded videos, tracking libraries, SEO and so on. You get a curated condensation of current affairs in a tiny package - a few hundred pages, each 40x25 7-Bit characters. The SNR is orders of magnitude above anything else out there.

[seabass-labrax]

I wouldn't be so quick to crown teletext as the king of succinct media. Just on the first page of the ORF teletext channel you refer to, there are lines flashing between advertisements for online gambling, tattoos and vegan (?) products with which to protect one's bladder and prostate. In order to navigate between news stories you have to memorize series of three-digit numbers or scroll through long indexes. After that, yes, in fairness, you get a nice simple text-only news article. Shame if you actually want the pictures though.

I personally think that the Web is a worthy successor in every respect, mostly because you have so much choice in how the page is displayed. Typefaces, colours, whether or not to display pictures - it's all up to you, the reader.

[derefr]

Mind you, neither the numeric indices for navigation, nor the lack of pictures, is really a stumbling block for the two user-types who most heavily contributed to / constrained the design — that being 1. blind people using screen readers who wanted to access a BBS-like service providing news, weather, etc., that would consider their access needs; and 2. deaf people who were accessing a given company’s teletext system under the expectation of it serving as the visual equivalent of said company’s IVR phone tree.

(In fact, consider how well teletext UX works as an efficient, navigable information-dense directory system for both blind and deaf and motor-impaired users, all inherently such that you just design once for the constraints of the system, and you get “the right thing.” There’s a reason governments latched onto it: it really works for everybody!)

The Web in theory is a successor to teletext in serving these needs… but it was really only the Gopher / HTML1 Web that was an inherent improvement. As soon as we started nudging content around with semantically-meaningless tables and divs to look better, the Web started to not work so good for users with these interaction difficulties.

[seabass-labrax]

That's true, but teletext isn't theoretically more constrained than the Web is. There's nothing stopping, for instance, teletext operators from producing pixelated animations or scrolling text effects, just as there's nothing stopping Web developers from adding accessibility-hostile layouts.

In Britain, teletext hasn't been available for over ten years now, but at the same time, a department called the Government Digital Services do an excellent job of making public websites accessible - complete with ARIA labels, semantic elements, all of that sort of thing. I'd easily acknowledge that teletext was ahead of its time, but I don't lament its replacement with the Web.

[dahauns]

>I wouldn't be so quick to crown teletext as the king of succinct media.

Show me a current example that comes even remotely close (especially one not skimping on the "curated" aspect).

>[..]mostly because you have so much choice in how the page is displayed. Typefaces, colours, whether or not to display pictures - it's all up to you, the reader.

See, that's the crux here - it's not just up to me. It's up to the media producer what kind of content they offer for me to be able choose from.