W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)

From: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:54:46 +0200
Message-ID: <001601c680b2$d123dbc0$0201a8c0@inekem>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hello Lachlan,

you wrote:
>The only significant different between the PDF and XHTML cases is that the 
>distribution of PDF readers is currently significantly higher than that of 
>XHTML, and that would indeed have some impact upon the decision to include 
>XHTML in a baseline these days; but keep in mind that this situation is 
>likely to change in the future.

I really don't know what you call significantly.

Looking the german website http://www.webhits.de the web barometer tells 
that only 25% of the visitors have downloaded adobe acrobat for reading 
pdf-documents So the other 75% will never know the contents of the document. 
Is that acces for all? I think you should always offer a html-version of a 
pdf-odocument..

And looking for browsers that can handle xhtml-files in use by visitors the 
amount is 22,2% (Opera, Firefox, Mozilla etc)  You call the difference 
tbetween PDF and XHTML (2,8%) a significantly difference?  I think the 
difference is not significant at all and both should not be in the baseline 
because accessibility is not guaranteed at all.

You can not expect visitors will download extra plug-ins for visiting 
content. They will simply skip that content, how important it might be. You 
can offer that plug-in format as extra.

greetings
Ineke
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 10:54:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT