There is one argument that I've never heard anyone mention when debating the place of the Archives within the GAGenWeb Project as a whole, and that is the advantages of having material presented in plain text, as opposed to material presented in HTML (particularly if using tables and frames). There are certain browsers that still cannot read tables and frames correctly. Most county sites use both to format almost every record (I am just as guilty as anyone else). We tend to forget that there are certain segments of the population who cannot access our sites because of these problems. I'm not just talking about people with slow or outdated browsers. From what I can tell, the computer programs used by the blind to read web sites have a hard time reading tables. Of course, this may have changed in the past few years as technology evolves to meet the need. Still, this is a valid point...county web sites are often complicated and graphically challenging, making them hard for some people to navigate through. My solution to these problems was to streamline my pages, making them as simple as possible, AND to place text versions of HTML documents in the Archives. I don't feel like it's a waste of space. Rather, it provides an alternate method of viewing the material for those who cannot (or prefer not to) read material in table-and-frame form. Sincerely, Dawn Watson CC/Rabun Co., GAGenWeb _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Dawn has raised a very good and very valid point. Thank you. Well said. Richard On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:27:24 -0500, Dawn Watson wrote > There is one argument that I've never heard anyone mention when > debating the place of the Archives within the GAGenWeb Project as a > whole, and that is the advantages of having material presented in > plain text, as opposed to material presented in HTML (particularly > if using tables and frames). There are certain browsers that still > cannot read tables and frames correctly. Most county sites use both > to format almost every record (I am just as guilty as anyone else). > > We tend to forget that there are certain segments of the population > who cannot access our sites because of these problems. I'm not just > talking about people with slow or outdated browsers. From what I can > tell, the computer programs used by the blind to read web sites have > a hard time reading tables. Of course, this may have changed in the > past few years as technology evolves to meet the need. Still, this > is a valid point...county web sites are often complicated and > graphically challenging, making them hard for some people to > navigate through. > > My solution to these problems was to streamline my pages, making > them as simple as possible, AND to place text versions of HTML > documents in the Archives. I don't feel like it's a waste of space. > Rather, it provides an alternate method of viewing the material for > those who cannot (or prefer not to) read material in table-and-frame > form. > > Sincerely, > Dawn Watson > CC/Rabun Co., GAGenWeb > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > Confused about Copyrights??? Review USGenWeb's policy on copyrights > at: http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html

Many of the recent advances in HTML is about one form or another of handicaps. For instance the alt tag with images is specifically there so that browsers that are so equipped can generate a verbal message for the visually impaired. That message can be descriptive of the image or just a label. It is really what the individual puts there. How for instance would simply placing photos in the archive help anyone who had a visual impairment. But a well designed html page could have a very descriptive Alt tag that would give a visually impaired individual a very rich description of the scene or individual. So archiving is not a simple answer to all things. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn Watson" <booleygirl@hotmail.com> To: <GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 12:27 PM Subject: [GAGEN] Plain text vs. HTML > There is one argument that I've never heard anyone mention when debating the > place of the Archives within the GAGenWeb Project as a whole, and that is > the advantages of having material presented in plain text, as opposed to > material presented in HTML (particularly if using tables and frames). There > are certain browsers that still cannot read tables and frames correctly. > Most county sites use both to format almost every record (I am just as > guilty as anyone else). > > We tend to forget that there are certain segments of the population who > cannot access our sites because of these problems. I'm not just talking > about people with slow or outdated browsers. From what I can tell, the > computer programs used by the blind to read web sites have a hard time > reading tables. Of course, this may have changed in the past few years as > technology evolves to meet the need. Still, this is a valid point...county > web sites are often complicated and graphically challenging, making them > hard for some people to navigate through. > > My solution to these problems was to streamline my pages, making them as > simple as possible, AND to place text versions of HTML documents in the > Archives. I don't feel like it's a waste of space. Rather, it provides an > alternate method of viewing the material for those who cannot (or prefer not > to) read material in table-and-frame form. > > Sincerely, > Dawn Watson > CC/Rabun Co., GAGenWeb > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== > Confused about Copyrights??? Review USGenWeb's policy on copyrights at: > http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html >

At 11:27 AM 4/9/03 -0500, you wrote: >There is one argument that I've never heard anyone mention when debating the >place of the Archives within the GAGenWeb Project as a whole, and that is >the advantages of having material presented in plain text, as opposed to >material presented in HTML (particularly if using tables and frames). There >are certain browsers that still cannot read tables and frames correctly. >Most county sites use both to format almost every record (I am just as >guilty as anyone else). I only use tables when absolutely necessary as the best way to present the data - and there are times when that works best. >We tend to forget that there are certain segments of the population who >cannot access our sites because of these problems. I'm not just talking >about people with slow or outdated browsers. From what I can tell, the >computer programs used by the blind to read web sites have a hard time >reading tables. Of course, this may have changed in the past few years as >technology evolves to meet the need. Still, this is a valid point...county >web sites are often complicated and graphically challenging, making them >hard for some people to navigate through. Folks who use the Internet have to learn to upgrade - even though we hate to move on from old comfortable program versions to newer ones. Unlike the old days (1996) browsers are now free, so that excuse is not as valid as it once was. As for the blind - the new technology - the coding replacing HTML 4.0 - XML - gives even more flexibility for the handicapped. The trick is to update the pages there already to the newer standards. >My solution to these problems was to streamline my pages, making them as >simple as possible, AND to place text versions of HTML documents in the >Archives. I don't feel like it's a waste of space. Rather, it provides an >alternate method of viewing the material for those who cannot (or prefer not >to) read material in table-and-frame form. The problem I've seen with the Archives is all that double spacing making it hard to read and or too much scrolling side to side which can be limited with HTML. Also if the data is on one's county site - it is much, much easier to make an update than to plead for months on end for someone from the Archives to make a change. Tim