- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:52:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Audrey J. Gorman" <agorman@megsinet.net>
- cc: W3c-Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Presumably OCR works on a TIFF document to an accuracy of up to 99.95% - this is the result that JSTOR claim they are getting by doing it. And it is indeed complex to get better results. The real questions are two - should they be commended for their approach to providing a more accessible option, and could they easily do even better? In both cases I think the answer is yes. Providing a ramp to cover access to two out of three steps is enough for a wheelchair to be lifted by a couple of large friends over the final one, so it does increase acces, in the sense that some poeple who were completely excluded are no longer completely excluded. The analogy is that not everyone has an OCR system for recognising what the text is in the first place. But helping the people who do happen to have that is better than ignoring everyone. I also think they could clearly do better at more or less no cost. If they can only get 99.95% accuracy using OCR systems it is a fair bet that their users will only get that, or less in using OCR to read TIFF files. So they are not really protecting the reputation of the publisher by not showing typos, they are making the user go through the same hoops theydo, with the likelihood that the user will end up with the same typos (and consequently opinion of the publisher's editorial system) as if they made the text available. And that is assuming the user has an OCR system as good as JSTOR. Most users are not in a position to rival a commercial setup for software quality. SO it would appear that maing the text available for download (with the images retained as images) would be extremely low cost, and if it were made clear how this text is generated and that it may contain transcription errors the user can at least appreciate what has been made available to them. My guess is that users willl accept the possiblity of an error, and may even be prepared to propose editorial improvements that are simple to make but cannot be systematically checked for by JSTOR. SO I applaud the small step of makling tiff formats availale, but note that it is a pretty small step, and I would be more inclicned to sing the praises of an organisation that made their text available even if that required a disclaimer pointing out the average error rate. just my 2 cents chaals On Tue, 28 May 2002, Audrey J. Gorman wrote: This is from AXS-LIB, a libraries and accessibility discussion list. Two questions for the WAI-IG: 1. How does OCR work on a TIFF document? 2. Is Ron's assessment of the complexity of the process accurate? I think that accessibility fixes should be straightforward so that the "playing field" is at least a little more "level." Answers? Comments? I'd like to help my colleagues in libraries get the right message to the folks at JSTOR. We're working on taking the accessibility message to all vendors who sell to libraries. Audrey Audrey J. Gorman Access for All Naperville, IL, USA agorman@megsinet.net Mobile: 630-661-9062 Office: 630-717-7336 www.accessall.net (under construction - temporary site) ================================================= "The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect" Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the WWW ================================================= -----Original Message----- From: Ron Stewart [SMTP:Ron.Stewart@ORST.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:54 PM To: AXSLIB-L@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: Re: JSTOR and accessibility Axel, I guess my question is why bother. I appreciate the effort, but feel that it is misdirected. While it does provide a better situation for the program doing a the document conversion it does nothing to improve access for the end user. Working with a TIFF file conversion can be more difficult that a straight OCR from print for the typical user, or using a reading machine which is how our novice uses typically interact with non-accessible documents. This effort still will require that an intuitional process be established to convert the docs and does not provide the user with direct access to the content and as such does not meet the criteria of the law. Ron Stewart -----Original Message----- From: Schmetzke, Axel [mailto:aschmetz@UWSP.EDU] Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 9:02 AM To: AXSLIB-L@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: Re: JSTOR and accessibility Ron, I would not say that the situation would not be better with at least TIFF files being made available. If it is the case that these can be OCRed (without having to go through the process of printing them first), then they can be converted into text files (which are, of course, of somewhat lesser quality because of the errors that occur in connection with the OCRing). It thus seems to me that having access to TIFF files is better than mere access to absolutely inaccessible GIF files. For me, the question is the following: How shall we respond to JSTOR's efforts? Shall we take the attitude that some access is better than no access and praise JSTOR for their attempts to make available a more accessible product--adding that they should strive to go still further by findings ways to make available top-quality text files? Or shall we simply snuff at their current efforts and insist that anything but text-based files is unacceptable? Axel -----Original Message----- From: Ron Stewart [mailto:Ron.Stewart@ORST.EDU] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:02 PM To: AXSLIB-L@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: Re: JSTOR and accessibility This is not any better than what we are dealing with now. TIFF files are graphics, not text, when JStor is willing to produce true text documents then they will not have to worry about compliance. Ron Stewart -----Original Message----- From: Schmetzke, Axel [mailto:aschmetz@UWSP.EDU] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:57 PM To: AXSLIB-L@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: Re: JSTOR and accessibility I'm very hesitant to consider JSTOR's approach towards providing accessibility an acceptable solution, but the very fact that a database/e-journal provider publicly addresses accessibility issues pertaining to its graphics-based product is promising. I'm curious: How do you folks feel about JSTOR's approach towards providing some measure of accessibility? Should we, as librarians, consider graphics TIFF files, which can be OCRed and can thus be converted into a screen-readable text-file, to be sufficiently accessible? Or are we bothered by the fact that it takes an additional piece of technology (OCR software), and thus an additional step, to get to text-based information, and that the converted text is substandard because of the errors produced by current OCR technology? Axel *************** Axel Schmetzke Library University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point -----Original Message----- From: Coonin, Bryna R [mailto:COONINB@MAIL.ECU.EDU] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:23 PM To: AXSLIB-L@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: JSTOR and accessibility Friends -- Full-text e-journal provider, JSTOR, has a team actively working on some of the accessibility issues in JSTOR that have concerned many of us over time. To keep users informed about developments in this area they have now included updates on this effort on the JSTOR web page at: http://www.jstor.org/about/accessibility.html Bryna Coonin Joyner Library East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858 E-mail: cooninb@mail.ecu.edu -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 18:52:47 UTC