3 ms·

Whitehouse.gov also has a new robots.txt file ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt ) If you search google for 'whitehous

Whitehouse.gov also has a new robots.txt file ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt ) If you search google for 'whitehouse' and 'robots' then you can still see the cache of the robots.txt file of the Bush Administration (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:tCfemw3M-aUJ:www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt+whitehouse+robots http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:tCfemw3M-aUJ:www.whiteho...)

jhancock 18y ago
God Bless!!! A geek's definition of Freedom!!! What a diff.
vaksel 18y ago
good catch
keyes 18y ago
All the URLs in the former robots.txt seem to end in "/text". It's likely that they just didn't want the text versions of the articles to be indexed.
- jonknee 18y ago
  You are correct. The text versions were present for screen readers.
  - sh1mmer 18y ago
    Instead of just using good markup in the first place?
    - jonknee 18y ago
      Good markup can't handle it all, text-only mode allows for stuff like having a transcript instead of a video with a link to a transcript. Text-only mode is even available on the new site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/accessibility/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/accessibility/ "In addition to the features that make the graphics version of the site more accessible, a text-only version provides added convenience for users." I'm not sure how to access it though, maybe that feature hasn't launched yet.
      - sh1mmer 18y ago
        I'm going to disagree. Let me share some background, I spent several years helping to write the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 spec. The original WCAG 1.0 as well as Section 508 specify an alternate text only site as a viable method. Real world experience shows us those sites quickly fall behind. Text-alternatives are necessary for multimedia content, text-only sites as an alternative to good markup aren't.
        bmelton 18y ago
        Fall behind in what sense? Obviously, if the multimedia content isn't transcribed quickly enough, then that makes sense, but I would also guess less consequential than if a given page weren't transformed from 'marked up' to 'text', but in the latter case, if the backend is dynamic, and just changing the output format, why would it fall behind?
        sh1mmer 18y ago
        People just don't want to maintain 2 sites. Extra features and sections often don't get updated to the text only rendering. I guess my point is that screen readers like (even prefer) well written markup. A text-only site is a kickback from when they couldn't and the accessibility guidelines were written to deal with that.
look_lookatme 18y ago
The site has been operational for less than a day. Let's compare at the end of administration.
sh1mmer 18y ago
Cache seems to have been updated now. Anyone have the contents to repost or another cache?
- sh1mmer 18y ago
  Yahoo has a cache :) http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=site%3Awhitehouse.gov+robots.txt&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt&w=robots+txt&d=KHMW2Q-YSInQ&icp=1&.intl=us http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=site%3Awhite...

jhancock 18y ago

God Bless!!! A geek's definition of Freedom!!! What a diff.

vaksel 18y ago

good catch

keyes 18y ago

All the URLs in the former robots.txt seem to end in "/text". It's likely that they just didn't want the text versions of the articles to be indexed.

jonknee 18y ago
You are correct. The text versions were present for screen readers.
- sh1mmer 18y ago
  Instead of just using good markup in the first place?
  - jonknee 18y ago
    Good markup can't handle it all, text-only mode allows for stuff like having a transcript instead of a video with a link to a transcript. Text-only mode is even available on the new site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/accessibility/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/accessibility/ "In addition to the features that make the graphics version of the site more accessible, a text-only version provides added convenience for users." I'm not sure how to access it though, maybe that feature hasn't launched yet.
    - sh1mmer 18y ago
      I'm going to disagree. Let me share some background, I spent several years helping to write the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 spec. The original WCAG 1.0 as well as Section 508 specify an alternate text only site as a viable method. Real world experience shows us those sites quickly fall behind. Text-alternatives are necessary for multimedia content, text-only sites as an alternative to good markup aren't.
      - bmelton 18y ago
        Fall behind in what sense? Obviously, if the multimedia content isn't transcribed quickly enough, then that makes sense, but I would also guess less consequential than if a given page weren't transformed from 'marked up' to 'text', but in the latter case, if the backend is dynamic, and just changing the output format, why would it fall behind?
        sh1mmer 18y ago
        People just don't want to maintain 2 sites. Extra features and sections often don't get updated to the text only rendering. I guess my point is that screen readers like (even prefer) well written markup. A text-only site is a kickback from when they couldn't and the accessibility guidelines were written to deal with that.

look_lookatme 18y ago

The site has been operational for less than a day. Let's compare at the end of administration.

sh1mmer 18y ago

Cache seems to have been updated now. Anyone have the contents to repost or another cache?

sh1mmer 18y ago
Yahoo has a cache :) http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=site%3Awhitehouse.gov+robots.txt&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt&w=robots+txt&d=KHMW2Q-YSInQ&icp=1&.intl=us http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=site%3Awhite...