E-mail List Archives
Thread: RE: Universities Legal Web Accessibility Update
Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)
From: Spruill, Kevin (NIH/NLM)
Date: Tue, Dec 09 2003 10:28AM
Subject: RE: Universities Legal Web Accessibility Update
No previous message | Next message →
Jason,
Thanx for the due diligence, and checking in w/ Ken. There's only one
problem with this... Considering the fact that most universities, and state
govt's are codifying practices that mimic if not directly adhere to the
Section 508 guidelines, the question is moot. Similarly, the main point that
most commentors have made to you and Giorgio is this...
Universities, and other entities could mistakenly view the use of your new
Transcoder, and the provision of equivalent text only pages as being
sufficient to meet compliance. Hence my initial comments to you suggesting a
re-wording of the marketing materials and overall effort. It really is that
simple. Unfortunately, in the effort to defend the companies efforts, the
main complaints and problems aren't being addressed.
No one said the tool or by extension the company was evil... We're just
worried that it will be misused/misapplied and therefore do more damage than
good.
HK
From: Jason Taylor-UsableNet
Date: Tue, Dec 09 2003 11:17AM
Subject: Re: Universities Legal Web Accessibility Update
← Previous message | No next message
Hello Kevin
I feel you are making me post the same reply a third time (once me and once
Giorgio) so I apologize if this is repeating previous postings but again you
say we need a "re-wording of the marketing materials and overall effort".
We view the recent postings only as good community feedback and I have not
or would not describe that we feel you are making us out to be evil (not
sure where that came from). I again point to the posting at
http://www.usablenet.com/accessibility_usability/textonly.html
Entitled: Text-only mode as part of website accessibility and usability
This was as a direct response to some of these postings and clearly outlines
how we see a text-mode or providing and controlling a text alternative
interface can benefit an overall accessibility strategy.
I agree that the majority of the postings where in response to marketing
wording and not product function and I agree that it fell on the wrong side
of the tracks - for that we are sorry.
On the last posting with regard communication on section 508 - it was purely
sharing with the community some clarification on one of the points
discussed.
We have created a suite of products that are presented as a complete
solution to create accessible and usable content; from finding issues,
fixing issues and then providing the flexible display options. This is our
product position.
Regards
Jason Taylor
> Jason,
>
> Thanx for the due diligence, and checking in w/ Ken. There's only one
> problem with this... Considering the fact that most universities, and state
> govt's are codifying practices that mimic if not directly adhere to the
> Section 508 guidelines, the question is moot. Similarly, the main point that
> most commentors have made to you and Giorgio is this...
>
> Universities, and other entities could mistakenly view the use of your new
> Transcoder, and the provision of equivalent text only pages as being
> sufficient to meet compliance. Hence my initial comments to you suggesting a
> re-wording of the marketing materials and overall effort. It really is that
> simple. Unfortunately, in the effort to defend the companies efforts, the
> main complaints and problems aren't being addressed.
>
> No one said the tool or by extension the company was evil... We're just
> worried that it will be misused/misapplied and therefore do more damage than
> good.
>
> HK
>
>