"But nobody reads teletext, it looks crap" some might say
True, it does look crap. The thing is, most people don't care - but the majority of people just don't notice its limitations. The computer press often likes to bash teletext, branding it defunct because of its looks. This is in spite of the fact that over 22 million people look at teletext every week (ITC), that it needs no technical expertise, and that it's free of subscription and phone charges.
The blocky graphics have been addressed. 'HighText' - teletext level 2.5 - provides more colours and simple, but smoother, graphics. In the UK, TV manufacturers and teletext providers have both ignored it in a chicken-and-egg scenario. Not only that, but if teletext providers used all the extra features, it'd slow the service down. And now that digital TV has launched in the UK, it looks unlikely that the providers will invest anything into updating the analogue teletext services.
With many people suggesting that Teletext is slow as it is, Level Two teletext was what the service was supposed to go on to become, and in many ways was a precursor to the digital TV teletext technology we see today.
The BBC flirted with Level 2 Teletext, which offers higher resolution graphics, wide text and more colours. The BBC have now abandoned Level 2 and say they have no plans to broadcast it in the future. -- http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/gallery/ceefax/in-vision.shtml