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

Re: LIFT Text Transcoder

From: Adaptive Technology International <ati3@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:03:19 -0500
Message-ID: <BAYC1-PASMTP120542F9CA7B230D6A4099FEF30@CEZ.ICE>
Message-ID: <000d01c63996$86f15b80$0300a8c0@computer>
To: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>, Léonie Watson <lw@nomensa.com>, "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Does Section 508 can serve for international standard for the web
accessibility         issues?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
To: "Léonie Watson" <lw@nomensa.com>; "WAI Interest Group"
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: LIFT Text Transcoder


> 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 22:45:54 GMT

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