WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Text Transcoders

for

From: Sean Keegan
Date: Jan 18, 2007 4:00PM

John Foliot wrote:
> So, as a tool, it's a tool... It fills a need when it exists, but it is
not a "final
> solution". Rather, it is a quick means to address a real problem.

It is a tool and, if used appropriately, can be useful for
developers/content creators completely unfamiliar with accessibility when
developing Web apps. I walked into a situation where it was implemented and
I had to figure out what to actually do with it. It was/is helpful in
communicating the concept of how a page would be organized in terms of
reading order by a screen-reader/other assistive tech. applications. Vision
is such a dominant sense that it did make it easier for those not familiar
with screen-reader feedback (or without access to such technology) to get a
basic understanding as to what may be access limitations to the page
content; they could "see" the problem on the page without resorting to
running the latest screen-reader.

To echo John F. - is it *the* magical tool that fixes everything? No - but
it can be a tool in the toolbox. Usablenet claims it is not a testing or
evaluation tool, but that is the role in which I found it was useful. Most
of the developers I have worked with have moved on to using tools like the
Web Developer Toolbar (FF) or AIS Web Accessibility Toolbar (IE).

sean



-----Original Message-----
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:17 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Text Transcoders

Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> I think most of us have difficulty with transcoders because they seem
> like a "patch" rather than a solution to accessibility problems.
> Their approach seems to be to address accessibility problems somewhere
> between the web site and the user agent. I expect most of us would
> like to see accessibility problems solved at either the web
> site or user agent end of things.

I, like many here, have similar feelings about transcoders like LIFT and
Betsie (BBC), for mostly the same reasons.

However, a few years ago, I was involved in a project at another major
university, who were grappling with a huge amount of legacy web content.
While the University in question was setting aggressive goals for accessible
development moving forward, the issue of that legacy data made the
acquisition of LIFT an option to improve access to all those years
of...well, "non-accessible-aware" development - yes, it was a work-around,
but it was also an effort to address a real problem that was compounded by
the cost of other "conversion" methods. Built into the process was a server
log review, to try and identify if certain documents were seeing significant
enough traffic to warrant proper conversion. Everyone involved knew it was
a compromise, but in life, compromise generally wins the day.

So, as a tool, it's a tool... It fills a need when it exists, but it is not
a "final solution". Rather, it is a quick means to address a real problem.

My $0.02

JF