W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: LIFT Text Transcoder

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:12:45 -0600
To: Léonie Watson <lw@nomensa.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <c25779c9.8fa93989.8198800@expms1.cites.uiuc.edu>
It should also be pointed out that in both Section 508 and
WCAG 1.0 a text only site is not considered an accessible
solution.  Basically the requirements state that the author
has determined that the primary site CANNOT be made
accessible, and the text only site provides some kind of
second class access to the content.

I think there is some kind of assumption that "Text Only" is 
some how equivalent to making the primary site accessible. 

Jon
  

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:39:27 -0000
>From: Léonie Watson <lw@nomensa.com>  
>Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder  
>To: "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>
>
>Patrick Lauke wrote:
>
>"I'll be contentious and say: if a site is built well from
the start (e.g. separating content from presentation - no
tables for layout, for instance - and proper structuring via
headings etc) there is no difference between using a "proper"
text browser, screen reader, or other AT with content that's
been passed through the transcoder. In my mind, this is only
useful if the original site is not built with standards etc to
begin with...a band-aid solution, at best."
>
>	Eloquently put. I'd add to this technical argument by saying
that for many people a text only option is a second class
solution.
>
>	It's rare to find a text only site that offers the same
quality of content as a primary site. Even with tools such as
Betsie or the transcoder, as Patrick later said, there are
always elements that can't be touched by this kind of technology.
>
>	If the site is designed right in the first place, there's no
need to take on the burden of an additional site, paying the
licence for another tool to make up the shortfall of poor
design and no need to relegate people to a second best site.
>
>Regards,
>Léonie.    
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
>Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2006 19:05
>To: WAI Interest Group
>Subject: Re: LIFT Text Transcoder
>
>
>ATI wrote:
>
>> I have the following two questions if anyone has used or
using the 
>> LIFT Text Transcoder
http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/index.html

>> 
>> 1. Can I use the LIFT Text Transcoder offline? I mean, if I
provide 
>> the web content or the product by CDS, can a blind user use
the LIFT 
>> Text Transcoder with out connecting through the internet line?
>> You know, some people are using very slow internet
connection and 
>> others even don't have internet connection at all.
>
> From what I can see, it's a server-side solution that needs
to fetch web content, transform it, and then re-deliver it via
the browser...so my guess would be no.
>
>> 2. who is the main beneficiaries of LIFT Text Transcoder?
>
>I'll be contentious and say: if a site is built well from the
start (e.g. separating content from presentation - no tables
for layout, for instance - and proper structuring via headings
etc) there is no difference between using a "proper" text
browser, screen reader, or other AT with content that's been
passed through the transcoder. In my mind, this is only useful
if the original site is not built with standards etc to begin
with...a band-aid solution, at best. And, if the original site
is *badly* inaccessible, even the text transcoder won't be
able to magically make it accessible (e.g. if you have videos
embedded in pages, not using structural markup, or similar
situations, LIFT won't automatically generate text transcripts
or give proper structure to the pages either).
>I'd argue that it's a server-side solution to a problem that,
if the site is designed/built properly, does not exist. The
core functionality and a lot of the customisation options that
the transcoder provides (such as changing font size or colour)
are things that, in my view, should all be handled client-side.
>
>P
>--
>Patrick H. Lauke
>__________________________________________________________
>re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com

__________________________________________________________
>Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/

__________________________________________________________
>
>


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and 
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
Cell: (217) 714-6313

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/

WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/



Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 15:13:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT