Yes, the newly unveiled UUA.org degrades nicely and that's a good thing.
When I review a new site, I like to flip it inside out "to examine the seams" as it were. Or more accurately, the logic behind its organization. When you remove the images and layout -- as you might, if converting the site for text readers, ultra-low bandwidth users and those with some mobile devices; in Firefox you can see this by going to View | Page Style | No page style and turning off the images in Edit | Preferences -- do you get
- a layout that resembles a half-demolished building? [10 May 2007. As the new www.unitarian.org.uk does] or
- something that looks like an outline, with the images replaced with captions?
You obviously want the latter, and not just because a small set of special-needs users, but because it suggests thoughtful planning for wider usability, and UUA.org passes the test.
And when you add the images and layout back, it looks nifty too.
(One small complaint: I would like to put http://www.uua.org in my feed reader and have it find the new -- and long overdue -- RSS feed, but so long as there is one, I won't complain much.)