E-mail List Archives
Thread: Lift Assistive
Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)
From: Thompson, Rachel
Date: Wed, Feb 10 2016 10:58AM
Subject: Lift Assistive
No previous message | Next message →
Hi, esteemed list.
One of the web decision makers on our campus is asking for opinions on the Lift Assistive tool. It has been in use on our campus for a long time as a way to produce a text-only version of web pages.
I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this give our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
If our web resources are created to meet WCAG 2.0 AA (our goal), is there a reason to keep our Lift Assistive license?
If you have an opinion or have faced similar questions, could you please share?
Much obliged,
Rachel
Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility
Center for Instructional Technology
University of Alabama
From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Wed, Feb 10 2016 11:21AM
Subject: Re: Lift Assistive
← Previous message | Next message →
> I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this give our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
Personally I find text only pages often less accessible because visual clues such as color, borders, spacing, images, font sizes, etc. are removed and just the text is left behind in a way that is sometimes more difficult to read and focus on for some people with low vision.
Jonathan
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Thompson, Rachel
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:59 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
Hi, esteemed list.
One of the web decision makers on our campus is asking for opinions on the Lift Assistive tool. It has been in use on our campus for a long time as a way to produce a text-only version of web pages.
I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this give our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
If our web resources are created to meet WCAG 2.0 AA (our goal), is there a reason to keep our Lift Assistive license?
If you have an opinion or have faced similar questions, could you please share?
Much obliged,
Rachel
Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility Center for Instructional Technology University of Alabama
From: Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC)
Date: Wed, Feb 10 2016 12:16PM
Subject: Re: Lift Assistive
← Previous message | Next message →
If you have actually achieved WCAG AA compliance then I do not see a reason to continue to keep your Lift license, unless your web office is way overfunded and you just cannot figure out what to do with all of the money.
Seriously though, I think of these kinds of tools as a way to provide limited access while work is done to make everything work as it should. Once the work is done they should be retired.
Mike Moore
Accessibility Coordinator
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Civil Rights Office
(512) 438-3431 (Office)
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Thompson, Rachel
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:59 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
Hi, esteemed list.
One of the web decision makers on our campus is asking for opinions on the Lift Assistive tool. It has been in use on our campus for a long time as a way to produce a text-only version of web pages.
I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this give our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
If our web resources are created to meet WCAG 2.0 AA (our goal), is there a reason to keep our Lift Assistive license?
If you have an opinion or have faced similar questions, could you please share?
Much obliged,
Rachel
Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility Center for Instructional Technology University of Alabama
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Wed, Feb 10 2016 12:41PM
Subject: Re: Lift Assistive
← Previous message | Next message →
its tools like this i think make our job harder. we keep telling people we
need to code to standereds and then some one comes in and says our tool
will do what you need make an accessable vertion well i say stop now and
just code to the standers you will get better web sites and more access for
every one not only people with disabilitys.
Lucia Greco
Web Accessibility Evangelist
IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration
University of California, Berkeley
(510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
Follow me on twitter @accessaces
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC) <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> If you have actually achieved WCAG AA compliance then I do not see a
> reason to continue to keep your Lift license, unless your web office is way
> overfunded and you just cannot figure out what to do with all of the money.
>
> Seriously though, I think of these kinds of tools as a way to provide
> limited access while work is done to make everything work as it should.
> Once the work is done they should be retired.
>
> Mike Moore
> Accessibility Coordinator
> Texas Health and Human Services Commission
> Civil Rights Office
> (512) 438-3431 (Office)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Thompson, Rachel
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:59 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
>
> Hi, esteemed list.
>
> One of the web decision makers on our campus is asking for opinions on the
> Lift Assistive tool. It has been in use on our campus for a long time as a
> way to produce a text-only version of web pages.
>
> I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this give
> our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is
> not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
>
> If our web resources are created to meet WCAG 2.0 AA (our goal), is there
> a reason to keep our Lift Assistive license?
>
> If you have an opinion or have faced similar questions, could you please
> share?
>
> Much obliged,
> Rachel
>
> Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
> Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility Center for Instructional
> Technology University of Alabama
> > > at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >
From: Don Mauck
Date: Wed, Feb 10 2016 1:08PM
Subject: Re: Lift Assistive
← Previous message | Next message →
Couldn't agree more! We had older architecture that required Accessibility settings. Our position now is that we expect products to stop using that and code to the standards. If we do that, shouldn't need any special settings, customers hate it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Greco [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:42 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
its tools like this i think make our job harder. we keep telling people we
need to code to standereds and then some one comes in and says our tool
will do what you need make an accessable vertion well i say stop now and
just code to the standers you will get better web sites and more access for
every one not only people with disabilitys.
Lucia Greco
Web Accessibility Evangelist
IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration
University of California, Berkeley
(510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
Follow me on twitter @accessaces
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC) <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> If you have actually achieved WCAG AA compliance then I do not see a
> reason to continue to keep your Lift license, unless your web office is way
> overfunded and you just cannot figure out what to do with all of the money.
>
> Seriously though, I think of these kinds of tools as a way to provide
> limited access while work is done to make everything work as it should.
> Once the work is done they should be retired.
>
> Mike Moore
> Accessibility Coordinator
> Texas Health and Human Services Commission
> Civil Rights Office
> (512) 438-3431 (Office)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Thompson, Rachel
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:59 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
>
> Hi, esteemed list.
>
> One of the web decision makers on our campus is asking for opinions on the
> Lift Assistive tool. It has been in use on our campus for a long time as a
> way to produce a text-only version of web pages.
>
> I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this give
> our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is
> not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
>
> If our web resources are created to meet WCAG 2.0 AA (our goal), is there
> a reason to keep our Lift Assistive license?
>
> If you have an opinion or have faced similar questions, could you please
> share?
>
> Much obliged,
> Rachel
>
> Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
> Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility Center for Instructional
> Technology University of Alabama
> > > at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >
From: Maxability Accessibility for all
Date: Thu, Feb 11 2016 7:25PM
Subject: Re: Lift Assistive
← Previous message | Next message →
<its tools like this i think make our job harder. we keep telling people we
need to code to standereds and then some one comes in and says our tool
will do what you need make an accessable vertion well i say stop now and
just code to the standers you will get better web sites and more access for
every one not only people with disabilitys.>
I second this. Just code to the standards.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Don Mauck < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Couldn't agree more! We had older architecture that required
> Accessibility settings. Our position now is that we expect products to
> stop using that and code to the standards. If we do that, shouldn't need
> any special settings, customers hate it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucy Greco [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:42 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
>
> its tools like this i think make our job harder. we keep telling people we
> need to code to standereds and then some one comes in and says our tool
> will do what you need make an accessable vertion well i say stop now and
> just code to the standers you will get better web sites and more access for
> every one not only people with disabilitys.
>
> Lucia Greco
> Web Accessibility Evangelist
> IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration
> University of California, Berkeley
> (510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
> http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
> Follow me on twitter @accessaces
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC) <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > If you have actually achieved WCAG AA compliance then I do not see a
> > reason to continue to keep your Lift license, unless your web office is
> way
> > overfunded and you just cannot figure out what to do with all of the
> money.
> >
> > Seriously though, I think of these kinds of tools as a way to provide
> > limited access while work is done to make everything work as it should.
> > Once the work is done they should be retired.
> >
> > Mike Moore
> > Accessibility Coordinator
> > Texas Health and Human Services Commission
> > Civil Rights Office
> > (512) 438-3431 (Office)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of Thompson, Rachel
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:59 AM
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Subject: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
> >
> > Hi, esteemed list.
> >
> > One of the web decision makers on our campus is asking for opinions on
> the
> > Lift Assistive tool. It has been in use on our campus for a long time as
> a
> > way to produce a text-only version of web pages.
> >
> > I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this
> give
> > our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is
> > not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
> >
> > If our web resources are created to meet WCAG 2.0 AA (our goal), is there
> > a reason to keep our Lift Assistive license?
> >
> > If you have an opinion or have faced similar questions, could you please
> > share?
> >
> > Much obliged,
> > Rachel
> >
> > Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
> > Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility Center for Instructional
> > Technology University of Alabama
> > > > > > at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
From: Sean Murphy
Date: Thu, Feb 11 2016 11:57PM
Subject: Re: Lift Assistive
← Previous message | No next message
Text only is old school thinking and is really only focusing at a sub-section of the disability community. I suspect it was more geared towards screen reader users. Any site that has dedicated pages for accessibility isn't following best practises and costing themselves more money.
Sean
> On 12 Feb 2016, at 1:25 pm, Maxability Accessibility for all < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> <its tools like this i think make our job harder. we keep telling people we
> need to code to standereds and then some one comes in and says our tool
> will do what you need make an accessable vertion well i say stop now and
> just code to the standers you will get better web sites and more access for
> every one not only people with disabilitys.>
>
> I second this. Just code to the standards.
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Don Mauck < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Couldn't agree more! We had older architecture that required
>> Accessibility settings. Our position now is that we expect products to
>> stop using that and code to the standards. If we do that, shouldn't need
>> any special settings, customers hate it.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lucy Greco [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:42 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
>>
>> its tools like this i think make our job harder. we keep telling people we
>> need to code to standereds and then some one comes in and says our tool
>> will do what you need make an accessable vertion well i say stop now and
>> just code to the standers you will get better web sites and more access for
>> every one not only people with disabilitys.
>>
>> Lucia Greco
>> Web Accessibility Evangelist
>> IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> (510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
>> http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
>> Follow me on twitter @accessaces
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC) <
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>>> If you have actually achieved WCAG AA compliance then I do not see a
>>> reason to continue to keep your Lift license, unless your web office is
>> way
>>> overfunded and you just cannot figure out what to do with all of the
>> money.
>>>
>>> Seriously though, I think of these kinds of tools as a way to provide
>>> limited access while work is done to make everything work as it should.
>>> Once the work is done they should be retired.
>>>
>>> Mike Moore
>>> Accessibility Coordinator
>>> Texas Health and Human Services Commission
>>> Civil Rights Office
>>> (512) 438-3431 (Office)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>>> Behalf Of Thompson, Rachel
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:59 AM
>>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: [WebAIM] Lift Assistive
>>>
>>> Hi, esteemed list.
>>>
>>> One of the web decision makers on our campus is asking for opinions on
>> the
>>> Lift Assistive tool. It has been in use on our campus for a long time as
>> a
>>> way to produce a text-only version of web pages.
>>>
>>> I know text-only does not mean accessible and I think tools like this
>> give
>>> our web teams the erroneous feeling that content is accessible when it is
>>> not. I also hate the lack of equity with separate-but-equal approaches.
>>>
>>> If our web resources are created to meet WCAG 2.0 AA (our goal), is there
>>> a reason to keep our Lift Assistive license?
>>>
>>> If you have an opinion or have faced similar questions, could you please
>>> share?
>>>
>>> Much obliged,
>>> Rachel
>>>
>>> Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
>>> Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility Center for Instructional
>>> Technology University of Alabama
>>> >>> >>> at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >