E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 12 (In chronological order)

From: Ann Jenkins
Date: Mon, Jul 24 2006 3:50PM
Subject: LIFT Text Transcoder
No previous message | Next message →

I am wondering if anyone on this list has any experience with or an opinion
about the LIFT Text Transcoder
(http://www.usablenet.com/products_services/text_transcoder/text_transcoder.
html). I just got off the phone with someone from a large university, and
they are looking into purchasing this product for the university. I don't
know anything about the product except what is on their web site, and I
realize UsableNet LIFT products are reputable, but somehow this feels like a
quick fix, too good to be true solution to their web accessibility problems.
I felt a bit alarmed that they think this can meet their government required
accessibility problems. Any thoughts? Is it better than nothing?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Ann


********************
Ann G. Jenkins, Ed.D.
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
(281) 414-7256

Accessible Web Design, LLC
http://accessibleweb.us

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Jul 24 2006 7:00PM
Subject: Re: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

Ann Jenkins wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone on this list has any experience with or an opinion
> about the LIFT Text Transcoder
> (http://www.usablenet.com/products_services/text_transcoder/text_transcoder.
> html). I just got off the phone with someone from a large university, and
> they are looking into purchasing this product for the university. I don't
> know anything about the product except what is on their web site, and I
> realize UsableNet LIFT products are reputable, but somehow this feels like a
> quick fix, too good to be true solution to their web accessibility problems.
> I felt a bit alarmed that they think this can meet their government required
> accessibility problems. Any thoughts? Is it better than nothing?

I have the same opinion of this as I have of those "text only" solutions
of old (using BBC's Betsie or derivative): they're a quick fix, band-aid
solution. If you build your pages properly, using standards, providing
alternative content etc, then you've already got a text-only
version...your markup itself. What's the need for such a "solution"?

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Mon, Jul 24 2006 9:00PM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

On July 24, 2006 17:45, Ann Jenkins wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone on this list has any experience with or an
> opinion about the LIFT Text Transcoder...

I have no experience with it, but I have an opinion: LIFT Text Transcoder is
not a good way to address accessibility issues with a major website.

I hadn't taken a look at this before, so I took some time to go through it a
bit just now. Please excuse the overly long response to your short
question.

Most of the standard arguments against creating a second, stand-alone,
text-only version of a site apply equally to creating an on-the-fly
text-only version of a site. For example, (1) It provides many clients with
a second-rate browsing experience. Text-only does not mean accessible to
all: text-only really serves only a specific subset of the much larger group
of users who benefit from a site being "accessible" in other ways. Someone
who is quadriplegic with 20/20 vision and who browses using sip-and-puff
input control does not need or want a text-only version of a site, they just
want a version that is fully accessible to a keyboard user, and that does
not depend too much on fine motor control. An older, novice web user with
weakening, but still good vision does not need or want a text-only site,
they just want a site that will increase font sizes when they use the
View -> Text Size -> Increase in Internet Explorer. (2) There is a tendency
for the "main" or "high graphics" version of a site to get all the design
team's attention, and for the second version of the site to be used as an
excuse not to implement or concentrate on normal accessibility improvements
to the main site. (3) It is not easy to ensure that all users who come to a
site will know or figure out that a text-only version exists.

As an example of how these issues can occur with the LIFT Text Transcoder,
check out the University of Georgia site. This site is listed first in the
set of examples of sites employing LIFT Text Transcoder that appears on the
www.usablenet.com home page. Here is the main page of the U of G as
transcoded by LIFT Text Transcoder:
http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/http://www.uga.edu

Click on the main link to the "UGA NEWS Service" and when you get to that
page, ask yourself, where are the headings? where are the skip navigation
links? where are the alt attributes for images on the original page? This
is accessible?:
http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/http://www.uga.edu/news/

Something funny I noticed (in a depressing/funny way) is that on the
original hi-graphics version of the UGA NEWS Service page, the "Text Only
version" link is actually a graphic link with tiny letters, and you need
JavaScript enabled to access the link!! Ha, ha. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.uga.edu/news/

And there is no "TEXT-ONLY VERSION" link at all on their Events page, which
is linked prominently from the home page:
https://db.uga.edu/mastercalendar/

On most other UGA pages, the "TEXT-ONLY VERSION" link is at the very bottom
of the page, where admittedly some blind screen reader users may actually
find it, but the link does not actually take you to the text-only version of
the page you are looking at, all the links lead only to the text-only
version of the home page. Hardly a good experience for an end user.

All of the arguments I identified above against using a text-only version
can be found at play in the University of Georgia's current implementation
of the LIFT Text Transcoder. And this is the site that usable.net is
listing on their home page as an example of the LIFT Text Transcoder
technology in action. How bad does it get on sites that they wouldn't
select as an example?

The point here is not that such a technology couldn't be useful in specific
cases for specific user groups, but that it is not a magic pill that will
make all of a site's accessibility issues go away. The amount of time spent
trying to configure the software and re-organize a site to conform to it
would in all likelihood be better spent directly fixing the accessibility
problems on the main site. If you start with a well-formed, well-designed
site, then you will output a beautiful, text-only version. But, hey, then
you wouldn't need the text-only version to begin with, would you?

Also, LIFT Text Transcoder should be compared to:

Betsie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/betsie/
This is a free, text-only translator created by the BBC, though it is no
longer updated or used by them I think.

mod_accessibility
http://apache.webthing.com/mod_accessibility/
This is a server mod for Apache servers that can be configured to do fancy
things like create tables of contents or lists of links on the fly as well
as create a text-only version of a page if that is what a client wants.

Phil.

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Tue, Jul 25 2006 1:50AM
Subject: Re: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

On 24/07/06, Ann Jenkins < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone on this list has any experience with or an opinion
> about the LIFT Text Transcoder
> (http://www.usablenet.com/products_services/text_transcoder/text_transcoder.
> html). I just got off the phone with someone from a large university, and
> they are looking into purchasing this product for the university. I don't
> know anything about the product except what is on their web site, and I
> realize UsableNet LIFT products are reputable, but somehow this feels like a
> quick fix, too good to be true solution to their web accessibility problems.
> I felt a bit alarmed that they think this can meet their government required
> accessibility problems. Any thoughts? Is it better than nothing?
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts.

I had LIFT brought to my attention by by boss back in 2003. I blogged
about it here (and got a response from Usablenet!):
http://www.timandkathy.co.uk/journal/2003/11/20/lift-text-transcoder/

Tim

From: Jason Taylor
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 4:10AM
Subject: Re: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

Dear Ann, Patrick, Philip and Tim

In light of your recent postings on WebAim I wanted to extend an
invitation to you all to become more educated with how LIFT Text
Transcoder works. You mentioned you are unfamiliar with the solution and
the only reference quoted was from 2-3 years ago. I would be happy to take
15 minutes to introduce fully the LIFT text Transcoder to you and how it
fits into an overall strategy for web accessibility. It is not just text
only, it has the capabilities to solve significant accessibility issues as
the dynamic assistive friendly view is created.

I would be happy to take you through a simple web demo to help you see why
many are adding this to their overall strategy. As demonstration of its
ability, we took the helpful comments posted about the University of
Georgia's site and added additional assistive features to key areas this
morning. See
http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/http://www.uga.edu

I hope you agree that having this ability to quickly improve a sites
access without having to find and schedule the changes on the original
site is powerful. Although we would agree and continue to encourage our
customers in better original design (we even sell tools to help with
this), many times the resources are not allocated quickly enough and
assistive users get left out. With this solution we can act as a partner
to the organization and help quickly to improve vast amounts of content.

Kind Regards
Jason Taylor
Product Manager
UsableNet, LIFT Text Transcoder.


> I am wondering if anyone on this list has any experience with or an
opinion
> about the LIFT Text Transcoder
> (http://www.usablenet.com/products_services/text_transcoder/text_transcoder.
html). I just got off the phone with someone from a large university, and
> they are looking into purchasing this product for the university. I
don't
> know anything about the product except what is on their web site, and I
realize UsableNet LIFT products are reputable, but somehow this feels like
> a
> quick fix, too good to be true solution to their web accessibility
problems.
> I felt a bit alarmed that they think this can meet their government
required
> accessibility problems. Any thoughts? Is it better than nothing? Looking
forward to your thoughts.
> Ann
> ********************
> Ann G. Jenkins, Ed.D.
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> (281) 414-7256
> Accessible Web Design, LLC
> http://accessibleweb.us












--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 5:50AM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

> Jason Taylor

> I hope you agree that having this ability to quickly improve a sites
> access without having to find and schedule the changes on the original
> site is powerful. Although we would agree and continue to
> encourage our
> customers in better original design (we even sell tools to help with
> this), many times the resources are not allocated quickly enough and
> assistive users get left out. With this solution we can act
> as a partner
> to the organization and help quickly to improve vast amounts
> of content.

However, particularly in certain management circles, LIFT won't be seen as
a transitional solution (until the original is made more accessible), but
as a permanent one (why do we now need to make the original more accessible?
we've just spent money on that text only version, that covers us doesn't it?)

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 9:50AM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

Another overly long post. Too much time on my hands this morning.

On July 26, 2006 06:08 EST, Jason Taylor wrote:
> In light of your recent postings on WebAim I wanted to extend an
> invitation to you all to become more educated with how LIFT Text
> Transcoder works...
[....]
> I would be happy to take you through a simple web demo to help you
> see why many are adding this to their overall strategy....

I think it is pretty clear how it works and no additional demo is necessary.
The Text Transcoder pulls the page from the source, manipulates it and
augments it according to specs and "annotations", then sends it to the user
as a new, improved page. With the use of these "annotations", page content
can be programmatically re-coded and/or re-ordered. The product also
provides users with the option of selecting various layout options for
themselves. That about covers it, right?

As a piece of technology, it is neat-o: I am always interested in seeing how
website data can be manipulated. But that doesn't make it a solution I
would recommend except in very special and/or temporary circumstances. I
feel the same way about the Apache server mod_accessibility that I mentioned
in my earlier post.

The criticisms I listed against the use of a text-only (or "dynamic
assistive friendly view") version still stand, I think. And now that I read
them, the ones that Tim identified on his blog posting back in 2003 all seem
to continue to apply as well.

On July 26, 2006 06:08 EST, Jason Taylor wrote:
> I hope you agree that having this ability to quickly improve a sites
> access without having to find and schedule the changes on the original
> site is powerful. Although we would agree and continue to encourage
> our customers in better original design (we even sell tools to help
> with this), many times the resources are not allocated quickly enough
> and assistive users get left out. With this solution we can act as a
> partner to the organization and help quickly to improve vast amounts
> of content.

Yes, this seems to me to be the strength of the product and the service
provided by LIFT. Speed. And yes, I am impressed with the example of the
service you can provide by putting through overnight changes to your Text
Transcoder version of the UGA site. But that's not a strong enough selling
point for me.

Besides, it is difficult to evaluate the actual value of the service in this
particular case without knowing the costs involved, reviewing the total UGA
web budget, and understanding how this fits in to the overall UGA site
development plans. I mean, this is summertime, right? Having an overnight
turnaround on changes to the Text Transcoder version of a university website
in the summer is not really necessary. And a site the size of UGA shouldn't
be resorting to quick fixes...UGA has a total annual budget of 1.3 billion
dollars, they've got their own massive IT department with hardware resources
that lots of companies can only dream of, and an entire computer science
department (with both an MA and a PhD program) full of bright, energetic
website whizzes who are struggling right now to find enough paid summer work
to get them through the next academic year. These students would LOVE to
get a well-paid job working on the UGA site. Why would UGA (or any other
university for that matter) even consider turning to an out-of-house
solution for anything to do with their own website? Indeed, I bet I could
make a good case that in the long-run a university will actually save money
by investing now in the human resources required to improve their site now,
in-house rather than off-loading it to a service like LIFT Text Transcoder.
But I digress...

On July 24, 2006 17:45 EST, Ann Jenkins wrote:
>> I don't know anything about the product except what is on their web
>> site, and I realize UsableNet LIFT products are reputable, but
>> somehow this feels like a
>> quick fix, too good to be true solution to their web accessibility
>> problems. I felt a bit alarmed that they think this can meet their
>> government required accessibility problems. Any thoughts?

On July 26, 2006 06:08 EST, Jason Taylor wrote:
> ...Although we would agree and continue to encourage
> our customers in better original design (we even sell tools to help
> with this), many times the resources are not allocated quickly enough
> and assistive users get left out.

On July 26, 2006 07:44 EST, Patrick Lauke wrote:
> However, particularly in certain management circles, LIFT won't be
> seen as
> a transitional solution (until the original is made more accessible),
> but
> as a permanent one (why do we now need to make the original more
> accessible? we've just spent money on that text only version, that
> covers us doesn't it?)

I am happy to hear that LIFT continues to encourage clients to improve the
original design of their sites to improve accessibility. And I am quite
certain that LIFT and its entire staff are 110% committed to web
accessibility issues. However, the danger that Patrick identifies is real,
as evidenced by Ann's original question. Non-technical managers who are
looking to meet governmental or legal obligations may very well see the LIFT
Text Transcoder as a quick fix method to accessibility problems. It fits
very well into a common management problem-solving structure: throw some
money at the problem, assign the responsibility to an external body, and
then simply forget about it until a complaint comes in. I would hope that
the community of people working on web accessibility issues would discourage
this kind of approach and instead highlight the value of making incremental,
ongoing improvements to a website -- not only because this will benefit
people with disabilities, but because that is the correct, long-term
solution for all users in almost all cases.

The WCAG 1.0 includes specific mention of the use of "alternative" versions
of pages and it discourages against it:
"Content developers should only resort to alternative pages when other
solutions fail because alternative pages are generally updated less often
than "primary" pages. An out-of-date page may be as frustrating as one that
is inaccessible since, in both cases, the information presented on the
original page is unavailable. Automatically generating alternative pages may
lead to more frequent updates, but content developers must still be careful
to ensure that generated pages always make sense, and that users are able to
navigate a site by following links on primary pages, alternative pages, or
both. Before resorting to an alternative page, reconsider the design of the
original page; making it accessible is likely to improve it for all users."
(Note to 11.4: <http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#gl-use-w3c>; )

I think that the purpose of including the possibility of "alternative"
versions is really to address situations where content simply cannot be made
accessible, i.e. "when other solutions fail", and not really to address
situations where someone just doesn't have the time or money to figure out
the available solution. In that context, I see the LIFT Text Transcoder as
a tool that is interesting as a demonstration of what kinds of site
transformations are currently possible and that may be of use, usually
temporarily, in specific cases, for certain websites, and that is all.

But that is not what a non-technical manager will think when they visit
usablenet.com. No. In fact, on the current home page of usablenet.com
<http://www.usablenet.com/>;, the LIFT Text Transcoder appears under the
heading "ADA Web Solution" and the product's name LIFT Text Transcoder
actually includes the acronym "A.D.A." in parentheses beside the title, as
though it is part of the name itself. And in the copy on the home page it
explains "LIFT Transcoder immediately - at no impact to client IT or web
development resources - creates an accessible (compliant) view of all web
content." The word "compliant" and the repeated use of the acronym ADA
would naturally lead someone to believe that the LIFT Transcoder is the
"solution" for web managers who need to make their sites "compliant" with
the "ADA". In my opinion, this is misleading advertising, and it is adding
to the potential confusion amongst non-technical managers about the purpose
and potential use of the LIFT Transcoder, despite the fact that elsewhere
the usablenet.com site is more clear about the idea of the Transcoder as
just one part of a larger accessibility strategy.

In light of the confusion that this seems to create, I would encourage LIFT
to change some of the promotional copy associated with the LIFT Transcoder
product.

None of this means that the LIFT Text Transcoder is a bad product. It looks
to me to be a great product at doing what it does -- really ingenious in
many ways. It's just that I don't think that function is particularly
useful except in very rare cases. And I also feel that at the moment it may
in fact be encouraging principles or understandings that don't line up with
my personal view of how to promote the use of accessible website design
across the world.

Regards,

Philip Kiff.

From: Jason Taylor
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 11:00AM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

Dear Philip

Your are right in your description of the basic process but too harsh on
the negative view and limited in your vision. Partnering with UsableNet
and LIFT Text Transcoder and other LIFT products gives clients options and
opens up content quickly to more people.

Too many times people over react to positive efforts organizations make
towards supporting assistive users just because it does not fit their
view, much like in this case. The University of Georgia are very committed
to web
accessibility in many forms, including encouraging creating good code from
the start and aids such as the LIFT Text Transcoder.

Over criticizing organization that have dedicate time and resources to
better support assistive users will only have a long term negative effect.

I will take on board some of your positioning comments but in general do
not share your view of what satisfies legal requirements. Our commitment
to our clients and users of the view generated by LIFT Text Transcoder is
that we will ensue any assistive device user will be able to get to any
content they need to in a comparable way as any other user. This is our
commitment, this is something LIFT Text Transcoder can achieve and we
think this is super important and we spend 110% of our time, skill and
efforts achieve this for our customers.

Kind Regards
Jason Taylor

> Another overly long post. Too much time on my hands this morning.
>
> On July 26, 2006 06:08 EST, Jason Taylor wrote:
>> In light of your recent postings on WebAim I wanted to extend an
invitation to you all to become more educated with how LIFT Text
Transcoder works...
> [....]
>> I would be happy to take you through a simple web demo to help you see
why many are adding this to their overall strategy....
>
> I think it is pretty clear how it works and no additional demo is
necessary.
> The Text Transcoder pulls the page from the source, manipulates it and
augments it according to specs and "annotations", then sends it to the
user
> as a new, improved page. With the use of these "annotations", page content
> can be programmatically re-coded and/or re-ordered. The product also
provides users with the option of selecting various layout options for
themselves. That about covers it, right?
>
> As a piece of technology, it is neat-o: I am always interested in seeing
how
> website data can be manipulated. But that doesn't make it a solution I
would recommend except in very special and/or temporary circumstances.
I
> feel the same way about the Apache server mod_accessibility that I
mentioned
> in my earlier post.
>
> The criticisms I listed against the use of a text-only (or "dynamic
assistive friendly view") version still stand, I think. And now that I
read
> them, the ones that Tim identified on his blog posting back in 2003 all
seem
> to continue to apply as well.
>
> On July 26, 2006 06:08 EST, Jason Taylor wrote:
>> I hope you agree that having this ability to quickly improve a sites
access without having to find and schedule the changes on the original
site is powerful. Although we would agree and continue to encourage our
customers in better original design (we even sell tools to help with
this), many times the resources are not allocated quickly enough and
assistive users get left out. With this solution we can act as a
partner to the organization and help quickly to improve vast amounts of
content.
>
> Yes, this seems to me to be the strength of the product and the service
provided by LIFT. Speed. And yes, I am impressed with the example of
the
> service you can provide by putting through overnight changes to your
Text
> Transcoder version of the UGA site. But that's not a strong enough selling
> point for me.
>
> Besides, it is difficult to evaluate the actual value of the service in
this
> particular case without knowing the costs involved, reviewing the total UGA
> web budget, and understanding how this fits in to the overall UGA site
development plans. I mean, this is summertime, right? Having an
overnight
> turnaround on changes to the Text Transcoder version of a university
website
> in the summer is not really necessary. And a site the size of UGA
shouldn't
> be resorting to quick fixes...UGA has a total annual budget of 1.3
billion
> dollars, they've got their own massive IT department with hardware
resources
> that lots of companies can only dream of, and an entire computer science
department (with both an MA and a PhD program) full of bright, energetic
website whizzes who are struggling right now to find enough paid summer
work
> to get them through the next academic year. These students would LOVE
to
> get a well-paid job working on the UGA site. Why would UGA (or any
other
> university for that matter) even consider turning to an out-of-house
solution for anything to do with their own website? Indeed, I bet I
could
> make a good case that in the long-run a university will actually save money
> by investing now in the human resources required to improve their site now,
> in-house rather than off-loading it to a service like LIFT Text
> Transcoder.
> But I digress...
>
> On July 24, 2006 17:45 EST, Ann Jenkins wrote:
>>> I don't know anything about the product except what is on their web
site, and I realize UsableNet LIFT products are reputable, but somehow
this feels like a
>>> quick fix, too good to be true solution to their web accessibility
problems. I felt a bit alarmed that they think this can meet their
government required accessibility problems. Any thoughts?
>
> On July 26, 2006 06:08 EST, Jason Taylor wrote:
>> ...Although we would agree and continue to encourage
>> our customers in better original design (we even sell tools to help
with this), many times the resources are not allocated quickly enough
and assistive users get left out.
>
> On July 26, 2006 07:44 EST, Patrick Lauke wrote:
>> However, particularly in certain management circles, LIFT won't be seen as
>> a transitional solution (until the original is made more accessible), but
>> as a permanent one (why do we now need to make the original more
accessible? we've just spent money on that text only version, that
covers us doesn't it?)
>
> I am happy to hear that LIFT continues to encourage clients to improve
the
> original design of their sites to improve accessibility. And I am quite
certain that LIFT and its entire staff are 110% committed to web
accessibility issues. However, the danger that Patrick identifies is
real,
> as evidenced by Ann's original question. Non-technical managers who are
looking to meet governmental or legal obligations may very well see the
LIFT
> Text Transcoder as a quick fix method to accessibility problems. It
fits
> very well into a common management problem-solving structure: throw some
money at the problem, assign the responsibility to an external body, and
then simply forget about it until a complaint comes in. I would hope
that
> the community of people working on web accessibility issues would
discourage
> this kind of approach and instead highlight the value of making
> incremental,
> ongoing improvements to a website -- not only because this will benefit
people with disabilities, but because that is the correct, long-term
solution for all users in almost all cases.
>
> The WCAG 1.0 includes specific mention of the use of "alternative" versions
> of pages and it discourages against it:
> "Content developers should only resort to alternative pages when other
solutions fail because alternative pages are generally updated less
often
> than "primary" pages. An out-of-date page may be as frustrating as one that
> is inaccessible since, in both cases, the information presented on the
original page is unavailable. Automatically generating alternative pages
may
> lead to more frequent updates, but content developers must still be careful
> to ensure that generated pages always make sense, and that users are
able
> to
> navigate a site by following links on primary pages, alternative pages,
or
> both. Before resorting to an alternative page, reconsider the design of the
> original page; making it accessible is likely to improve it for all users."
> (Note to 11.4: <http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#gl-use-w3c>; )
>
> I think that the purpose of including the possibility of "alternative"
versions is really to address situations where content simply cannot be
made
> accessible, i.e. "when other solutions fail", and not really to address
situations where someone just doesn't have the time or money to figure
out
> the available solution. In that context, I see the LIFT Text Transcoder as
> a tool that is interesting as a demonstration of what kinds of site
transformations are currently possible and that may be of use, usually
temporarily, in specific cases, for certain websites, and that is all.
>
> But that is not what a non-technical manager will think when they visit
usablenet.com. No. In fact, on the current home page of usablenet.com
<http://www.usablenet.com/>;, the LIFT Text Transcoder appears under the
heading "ADA Web Solution" and the product's name LIFT Text Transcoder
actually includes the acronym "A.D.A." in parentheses beside the title,
as
> though it is part of the name itself. And in the copy on the home page
it
> explains "LIFT Transcoder immediately - at no impact to client IT or web
development resources - creates an accessible (compliant) view of all
web
> content." The word "compliant" and the repeated use of the acronym ADA
would naturally lead someone to believe that the LIFT Transcoder is the
"solution" for web managers who need to make their sites "compliant"
with
> the "ADA". In my opinion, this is misleading advertising, and it is adding
> to the potential confusion amongst non-technical managers about the purpose
> and potential use of the LIFT Transcoder, despite the fact that
elsewhere
> the usablenet.com site is more clear about the idea of the Transcoder as
just one part of a larger accessibility strategy.
>
> In light of the confusion that this seems to create, I would encourage LIFT
> to change some of the promotional copy associated with the LIFT
Transcoder
> product.
>
> None of this means that the LIFT Text Transcoder is a bad product. It
looks
> to me to be a great product at doing what it does -- really ingenious in
many ways. It's just that I don't think that function is particularly
useful except in very rare cases. And I also feel that at the moment it
may
> in fact be encouraging principles or understandings that don't line up with
> my personal view of how to promote the use of accessible website design
across the world.
>
> Regards,
>
> Philip Kiff.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>




--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

From: Stewart, Ron
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 11:20AM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

Good morning,

I was going to stay out of this one, but it has been a bad day and this
does not help. This conversation repeats itself every couple of years,
and will probably continue to do so until colleges and universities
fully understand what accessibility and usability are about, something
that can not be relied on from vendors who's bottom line interest is to
not have them educated.

This is an old and often repeated discussion on several fronts, those of
us who have been involved in it over the years tend to not even say
anything anymore. I have talked to the UsableNET folks several times,
and have asked them to tone down the rhetoric their marketing folks are
using, but obviously to no avail. This is a second class solution that
results in a back of the bus mentality in regards to accessibility.
While it does result in a website that technically meets the letter of
the law, I think it is a long way from meeting the spirit of the law!

The tool only works on websites that are basically accessible on the
front end, and if they are not accessible it takes a fair amount of work
on the part of the web development staff, or even easier you can pay
UsableNET to do it for you, at a fairly decent cost. When the real
"accessibility experts" start using this and other products of its kind,
then I will start recommending it to the colleges and universities that
I work with. At this point I suggest to them to ignore the high
pressure marketing, and spend their money on educating and testing of
their sites with persons with disabilities.

Lets end this tit for tat discussion and get back to talking about REAL
accessibility

Ron Stewart

*********************************************************************
Ron Stewart
Technology Advisor - AHEAD
Chair, AHEAD E-Text Solutions Group
66 Witherspoon Street Suite 352
Princeton, NJ 08542
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.ahead.org

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 11:50AM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

On July 26, 2006 12:50 EST, Jason Taylor wrote:
> Too many times people over react to positive efforts organizations
> make towards supporting assistive users just because it does not fit
> their view, much like in this case. The University of Georgia are
> very committed to web accessibility in many forms, including
> encouraging creating good code from the start and aids such as
> the LIFT Text Transcoder.

Perhaps my comments imply a too-harsh criticism of the University of
Georgia's commitment to accessibility, and if so, I apologize for that. I
don't know anything about UGA or the history of their website or commitments
to accessibility; it was just happenstance that led me to look at the UGA
site as an example. I meant to criticize their implementation of the LIFT
Text Transcoder in their current site for the reasons outlined.

This is a fairly specialized mailing list that has seen more than its share
of harsh criticism levelled at products in the past. It seemed as good a
place as any to engage with these issues.

> Over criticizing organization that have dedicate time and resources to
> better support assistive users will only have a long term negative
> effect.

I disagree with this sentiment. While overly harsh criticism may cause some
people to associate negative feelings with issues related to web
accessibility, it is often (and demonstrably) an effective means to push an
organization towards change. So the long term real effect of harsh
criticism can be positive, while the short term effect may be negative.

Phil.

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 12:10PM
Subject: Re: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | Next message →

Does this have to be in two different threads?

From: Ann Jenkins
Date: Wed, Jul 26 2006 12:20PM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder
← Previous message | No next message

Thanks to Jason for his explanation and offer of a demonstration of the LIFT
Text Transcoder. Certainly, I will contact him personally because I am
always interested in any product and effort to promote accessibility.

Thanks to Patrick, Tim, and Philip for their valuable insight and opinions.

While I can appreciate the LIFT Text Transcoder as an interim/temporary aid
in the mist of a formal plan to achieve enterprise-level web accessibility,
my concern continues to be the false sense of security I think some
organizations will have upon implementing it, and the belief that they've
done their part to meet web accessibility requirements.

********************
Ann G. Jenkins, Ed.D.
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
(281) 414-7256

Accessible Web Design, LLC
http://accessibleweb.us