jebsblog

I took the plunge and installed WordPress v 3.0 last night. I used the automatic install/upgrade which is a godsend and completed the task in about 20 seconds. But before I go and upgrade the rest of my clients’ installs of WP, I figure I had better test things out first. So, this posting is a bit of a test…

I think I may have also discovered a bug in v3.0, and am search for others who are experiencing this…it is minor, but annoying. The “bug” is in how the Dashboard displays content. To the uninitiated, the Dashboard is the administrative “back end” of the WordPress  application where you make settings adjustments, install stuff and where you post your blog entries.

Using the “screen options” tab (upper right) you are allowed to choose having a number of different elements to be visible on the Dashboard. The elements include messages from WP, plus quick links to some of the things you use regularly. Most important is that you have the ability to put this information in 1, 2, 3, or 4 columns to make it easier to read.

Well, the first thing I noticed after the upgrade was that all of the information on my Dashboard was being squeezed into two columns even though I had the settings set for three columns. When I tried changing the settings, I apparently made it worse since now everything is squished into one LONG column and the 2-3 columns to the right are empty save what appears to be an empty php/div block. Hmm.

A search of WP forums turned up nothing so far…I may try posting a bug report. I will also post this observation to Twitter and see if it is just me…always a possibility.

End of test…

Back in March 2010, I rather gleefully blogged about YouTube’s latest feature called “automatic captioning.” Since that time, I have become bemused and amused by the state of this “service.” It seems Google – the owners and operators of YouTube – have been using our videos as fodder for their new Google Voice speech-to-text (S-t-T) translation machine. Google claims, “It (Google Voice transcripts) will improve over time as our transcription engine gets smarter.” It is not clear how the Google transcription engine will get “smarter,” but I’m, figuring the more the system is used, the more it will learn, and the smarter it will become…make sense?

Whoever perfects S-t-T stands to make billions in the first year, so it stands to reason Google would be interested in tapping into that treasure chest. But perfecting S-t-T has always been an elusive goal and anyone worth their salt in the captioning or transcription business knows the human beings still make the best captionists.

That said, at the recent Accessibility Unconference a few weeks ago, the issue of S-t-T came up and there was lots of interest in YouTube’s “automatic captioning” service. I should note here that YouTube currently calls this a “machine transcription” service and offered it with some caveats. They also seem, in some ways, to be more interested in the language translation tool that was also delivered on YouTube at the same time. Perhaps there is more money to be made in the translation of Chinese to English than in S-t-T.

At the Unconference, there was one gentleman who represented a transcription service company in Massachusetts that used a system based upon a combination of automated S-t-T and human power. He claimed that his system was much faster than regular human-only transcription because machines  take the first cut at the translation and humans completed the final edits. He also claimed it was flawless. Lastly, he noted that the fee for this service ranged on a scale based upon the quality of the audio. Apparently, the poorer the quality of the speech, the more interactions with humans is necessary, and the more expensive is the price tag.

So all this got me thinking about the experimental YouTube video I created and posted back in early March. The “automatic captioning,” eh, machine translation, of my video was indeed a bit hilarious. Sharing it with friends, we all howled at the bizarre transcripts that were produced by the system. It was a bit like playing that children’s game, “Telephone,” where you whisper something into someone’s ear and they whisper it into the next person and so on down the line until the last person says it out loud. The final product never comes out correctly and is usually quite funny. And indeed, the YouTube “machine transcription” was much the same.

For my test video, I purposely read a printed text -  as opposed to spontaneous speech – so I would have an exact copy of the content from which to compare the transcript. The results were marginal at best and honestly, the transcript really made no logical sense. It was also amazing what YouTube’s machine translation failed to recognize. The machine translation had a particular difficult time with the words “accessibility” and “web design.” Go figure.

I recently learned that you could download the YouTube machine translation, edit it, and then re-post it to the original YouTube video. So, today I finally got around to trying this and though successful, the process was not without pain.

First, the machine transcript is saved in some unique YouTubian format (.SBV). The content is readable using a simple text editor and looks like this:

 0:00:02.179,0:00:07.740
   okay so am I- of doing it tested video here
   it and I'm going to read this to see if the
   0:00:07.740,0:00:09.959
 captioning system works well

Fortunately, my MovCaptioner software could import the file and provide an easy way for editing the content. But after editing the text, I could not export the transcript without first merging it with a video. I had to grab the original video from YouTube (which I downloaded in .MP4 format) and then load that into MovCaptioner. Once the editing was finished (see note below about time), I was able to save and export the file in another format (.SUB for Subtitle format) and then upload that transcript file to YouTube.

The final edited .SUB file looks like this:

 00:00:02.17,00:00:07.72
   Okay so I am doing a test
   video here and I'm going to
   read this to see if the
   00:00:07.74,00:00:09.94
 captioning system works well

As predicted, the most strenuous part of the process is the actual editing of the transcript. Even though the machine transcript had gotten about 50% of the content correct, it still took close to 45 minutes for me to edit the three minutes of video. It is clear that I talk pretty fast, as there was 75 lines of text that had to be edited. I can’t imagine doing this for anything longer.

So, I’ve learned a few things here:

First, YouTube’s “automatic captioning/machine translation” is far from perfect and must not be used, at this point, for anything other than amusement. I am not sure if Google has a timeline on when this will get better, but until it produces accuracy at a 85% or higher basis, I would not rely on it as a usable transcription.

Second, while machine translation, followed by human editing is clearly more accurate than machine translation alone, the time savings may not be all that one might imagine. I’m guessing that a professional transcriptionist using state of the art equipment would have been able to transcribe the three minutes of video a lot faster than I was able to edit the machined version.

Last, we are still a long way from fully accurate S-t-T and if you are going to use videos on your websites, and want them to be accessible, you are probably still going to have to pay someone to create a transcript/caption file for you.

Note: jeremykemp has posted a YouTube video comparing human vs. machine translation on several video clips. You can see the errors produced by the machine transcription.

Originally published 5/14/10; revised 5/24/10

Just starting to read a report of this week’s Access Board hearing on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines. Here is the beginning of that report:

On May 12 the Board held a public hearing on its refresh of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines. Through this event, which attracted a sizable audience, the Board sought feedback from the public on its draft update of standards for Federal technologies covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and guidelines for telecommunications products subject to Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act.

Read the complete report of the hearing here.

UPDATE: I attended the EASI webinar (5-24-10) on the 255/508 Refresh. TRACE Center has a new resource that may be “easier” to understand. Here is the TRACE Center resource.

It occurred to me while I was posting a response to a potential client that I didn’t have a resource I could point them to as an answer to the question in the subject line. Certainly, after doing this work for over 10 years, I know the answer to the question, but I had never written in down in exactly that form. Indeed, I have given innumerable workshops and talks over the years and always covered this in the first five minutes. But I guess I have always assumed that everyone already knew this. Silly me.

So here is my answer to the question: Why should my website be accessible? Feel free to comment as a way of adding to the list of reasons. The more (reasons) the merrier.

To begin, not everyone knows that a certain number of people with disabilities must use specialized hardware and software (called Assistive Technology or A.T.) to use computers and technology. For example, most people who are blind (and many people with visual impairments) use a application called a screen-reader which “translates” content on a computer (or other technology) into speech or Braille. The screen-reader software also provides a easy way for the blind person to use the various controls on a computer or device by providing audio feedback which tells the user what is being typed on the screen or what controls are being used. There are also “tools” built into the screen-reader application that allow the user to “scan” the information on the screen and navigate quickly through the content in a way that is purposeful and meaningful. Without screen-reading technology many blind people and those with visual impairments would not be able to use these technologies.  Here is a link to more information about Braille and how screen-readers works.

Consider for a moment all the people in the United States who have some form of visual disabilities – that is, all the blind and visually impaired folks. Recent estimates are that there are about 15 million people in the United States who have these disabilities (source Braille Institute). Can you afford to have your website not be available to 15 million people in the US alone?

If we also consider other people with disabilities, the numbers grow even larger. People with hearing disabilities frequently need to have video content captioned or audio files transcribed in order to be accessible. People with mobility impairments, that may not be able to use a mouse to navigate around a computer screen, need to have accessible websites that work with the various Assistive Technologies they use.

So the first reason your website should be accessible is because only accessible websites will work correctly and completely with Assistive Technologies. Those websites that are partially accessible or not accessible at all, will be partially usable or completely unusable by people who have disabilities. So, if you want everyone to have access to the content on your website, you should make sure your website is accessible.

The next reason for having an accessible website is because accessible websites meet the international standards for web design and for this reason will work in every “user agent,” that is, every browser, on every operating system, and in every mobile and handheld devices (e.g., mobile phones and small WiFi devices like iPods and iPads). There are literally thousands of different devices and configurations with new technologies being developed every day.  So, if you want your website to work with virtually all devices that connect to the internet, you should make sure your website is accessible.

The next reason to make your website accessible is because Google will love you for doing so. Well, not really, but if you want people to find and use your website, then you should be concerned about how search engines like Google “feel” about your site. The science behind this is called Search Engine Optimization (SEO) which is based upon a set of methodologies that search engine services use to rank websites.

The corporate world spends lots of money tweaking their websites in order to improve their SEO. They understand that the difference of 1% in traffic flowing to a website could mean millions of dollars of profit for their company. Simply put, accessible web sites rank higher on SEO because they are built better than non-accessible sites and Google likes that. So, if you want to improve your SEO, you should make sure your website is accessible.

The last reason I will give here is one that is not exactly universal – yet. However, the trends suggest that it is just a matter of time before it becomes universal. What I am talking about is the legal requirement to make your website accessible.

Currently in the United Kingdom, it is the law that websites be accessible to people with disabilities (here is a summary about the law from Royal National Institute for Blind People). While not everyone is yet in compliance, there has been a steady increase in the number of websites in the United Kingdom that meet accessibilty standards.

In the United States, there is no universal law requiring all websites to meet accessibility standards. However, there are laws on the books that require websites for all federal and state government programs to be accessible. Currently, there are several groups reviewing two federal laws that deal with accessibility and websites, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, with an eye on expanding these laws to cover more websites. In recent years, various advocacy organizations for disabled Americans have also brought numerous civil rights complaints against businesses for not having accessible websites. And, while there has not been a definitive legal ruling, it is clearly just a matter of time before website accessibility becomes the law of the land in the United States. So, if you want to get ahead of this and be ready when the laws and rules change, you should make sure your website is accessible.

Here are some links to some other folks who have addressed this issue:

• World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) – Web Accessibility
• WAI’s “Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization” (thank you Andrew Arch @w3.org)
• WebAIM
• Guild of Accessible Web Designers (GAWD)
• Disabled World
• Admixweb
• Hipertext.net

And if you think of more reasons, please pass them along by commenting.

I admit that I am old enough to remember an ad campaign many years ago for the soft drink 7-Up where they referred to the product as the “Un-Cola” (WARNING: YouTube uncaptioned video) .  I know, I’m showing my age.

This thought hit me as I was signing up to attend the Boston Accessibility “Unconference” a few weeks ago. After reading the introduction and description on their website, I found it strangely reminiscent of the “happenings” we engaged in when I was a youth in high school and college. Very avant-garde, I thought; I’m in.

So with open expectations and my colleague Steve Sawczyn (a.k.a. @steveofmaine) riding shotgun, I ventured the three hours down to Waltham, MA this Saturday to see what would “happen.” I will admit that I was surprised by some things and not others. There were good things and disappointments. The experience reminded me vaguely of the first Tweetup I attended about a year ago; meeting a bunch of people whom I knew only through digital correspondences, blog posts and Tweets. I was quickly putting faces with “avatars” and changing my impressions at a steady pace.

There will be a formal evaluation process for the Boston Accessibility Unconference and when that comes out, I will take the opportunity to provide my full opinions there. But I wanted to take a few minutes to reflect upon the experience and post that information here while it was relatively fresh in my mind. I’ve organized my thoughts into three statements. Feel free to respond or generate your own ideas. Here are the three statements:

• What it was
• What it wasn’t
• What I would like it to be in the future

What it was

The Boston Accessibility Unconference was a gathering of about 80 fairly diverse folks who were interested in the accessibility of information technology. Like me, most seemed interested in the vicissitudes of accessible web design, but there were a number of folks whose interests appeared to branch into other areas of technology. There were a fair number of people with disabilities among the gathering.

The setting was the beautifully modern Waltham facilities of the Adobe Corporation provided by host Andrew Kirkpatrick, Adobe’s product manager for accessibility. The building featured all the latest gizmos and the most high tech restrooms on the planet. If you haven’t had a chance to hear Steve Sawczyn’s report of the skin-removing hand dryers in the men’s room, you are missing a rewarding experience. I will think of this place when I sent a hunk of cash to Adobe in a few weeks to purchase CS5 (again Warning: I don’t know if this link leads to an accessible website)

The agenda for the day was pretty free-flowing: an initial warm-up-welcome activity to create an “agenda,” four breakout periods where topics were assigned through a groupthink process, and various breaks for social interaction.

Several of the sessions that I attended were rather free-flowing with no one really taking charge and a general open exchange of ideas and opinions (some included with “hand grenades”; sorry Andrew). On the contrary, several of the sessions I attended were somewhat controlled by one or two individuals who had brought a PowerPoint presentation and seemed determined to give it whether people wanted to hear it or not.

What it wasn’t

I have to be careful here. I don’t want to sound critical or petulant because overall, the experience was very positive. But I didn’t get everything I wanted. So, if I frame this as what I was hoping for – and didn’t get – may be no one will be offended.

I was hoping for a larger picture (big picture) perspective and understanding of accessibility. I spend a lot of time in my head thinking about this topic in very global terms and I wanted to meet like-creatures and compare notes. I think they were in the room, but I didn’t have an opportunity to find many of them.

I was hoping to learn new things about areas I was interested in. I sensed a general backward reflection process or “this is what I do” attitude and was hoping for more of a what do we need to do differently attitude.

Like Guy Noir, I was hoping to find answers to life’s most persistent questions.

What I would like it to be in the future

I would like there to be a professional facilitator or facilitators who are not knowledgeable or interested in the topic of accessibility who can keep things on target.

I would like there to be more in the way of preparation beforehand so everyone can hit the ground running.

I would like for there to be more time to socialize. I would like there to be more time.

I would like to narrow down the focus to a couple of topics (may be three) and deal with them – I would like this to have been done before I got there. In essence, I want a little less “un” in the unconference.

I would like folks to leave the PowerPoints at home and just talk about the topics.

I would like everyone to be an expert and no one to be an expert. Yeah, you can tell I’m a child of the ’60s on that one!

I would like (and am still hoping for) a continued conversation. Perhaps that’s why I wrote this.

Final Thoughts

I’d like to truly thank all those who organized this. It was a risky activity and I think it came off wonderfully. I would like to particularly thank the sponsors for their financial and in-kind contributions. I promise to do whatever I can to make this happen again.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to “pass the hat” or pay a few bucks to be there.

I hope we do not wait a year for another Boston Accessibility Unconference. The topic and the work is too important. I would like almost a monthly (daily, hourly) opportunity to converse – there has to be a technology that we can use to do this. We should make that the first priority.

How can I help?

What do you think?

Feel free to comment!