[Athen] Interesting New story

[skeegan at htctu.net]

Anytime I see articles like the following, I have to remind myself  
that this is just part of how some business environments work with  
respect to public relations and marketing.  I am not saying it is bad,  
just that there is usually   much more going on behind the scenes.  I  
know several of those working on the CSU initiative and the goals that  
have been set. The work ahead will not be easy and I am sure many of  
these individuals will be putting in some serious sweat and blood to  
bring the Accessible Tech. Initiative to fruition.

That being said, I think that such publications do require very  
serious attention to what *is* said as well as what *is not* said.   
For instance, the comment, "...HiSoftware's solutions are part of our  
multi-prong strategy for checking the accessibility of Web sites in a  
scalable manner," certainly raises questions in my mind as to what are  
the other prongs?  Additionally, the above quotation identifies just  
the *checking* of the accessibility of Web sites with the HiSoftware  
tools.

For those familiar with how such technologies work, we can make  
assumptions and educated guesses as to what may be the other prongs in  
the above mentioned "multi-prong strategy".  I think the challenge is  
that for those who are *not* familiar with the accessibility  
evaluation process of Web content, articles such as these may fuel  
misunderstandings as to the real capabilities and limitations of  
automated testing.

John F. mentioned in his response that these automated tools (and I am  
paraphrasing a bit here) can "...walk content authors through various  
accessibility checkpoints..." and "[allow]...web accessibility  
specialists to identify areas of concern, and perhaps even seek out  
the "offending" author and educate them on why they have a problem and  
teach them how to fix it."  These are some good examples as to how to  
use such an automated tool in conjunction with trained individuals to  
address Web site accessibility (e.g., part of a multi-prong  
strategy..?) and I suggest such options when training and working with  
community colleges.

I feel the challenge with such an article is all the information it  
does *not* convey and a lack of information can be misleading to those  
unaware of the scope of accessibility to Web-based information.  Make  
no mistake - I find the HiSoftware tools a viable option when used in  
conjunction with properly trained individuals familiar with Web access  
concepts.  At the same time, I interact with many Webmasters, deans,  
and CIO/CTO representatives who initially view such technologies as  
the *fix it* tool that will automatically transform materials into  
accessible Web content.  Bridging the gap between those who understand  
the intricacies of such tools and those who make decisions is, and  
will be, an on-going discussion with (ideally) positive results.  What  
I personally find most interesting is the system wide approach the CSU  
system is adopting to addressing access to electronic and information  
technology as well as the benchmarks over the course of this initiative.

okay...if you made it this far, you get a gold star.

sean