W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: Jakob Nielsen Column -- PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption

From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:41:28 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c36a45$6c392d40$0200000a@IBM>

Hello,

Nick asks:
"Are you saying it's inherently worse than HTML for blind users, even
setting aside the additional cost of equipment capable of reading PDF?"

I am saying that PDF is inherently difficult to transform properly, and I
stated my three issues. I was not talking about HTML or XML, but if produced
according to the WAI guidelines, HTML is great.

Best
George


Best
George


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nick Kew
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 4:24 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Jakob Nielsen Column -- PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, George Kerscher wrote:
> 
> > Dear All,
> >
> > There are multiple issues with PDF that have been stated 
> over and over
> > again. While I applaud the efforts to make PDF accessible, there are
> > problems that are extremely difficult to overcome.
> 
> (chop specific points)
> 
> It seems to me that your points apply to HTML as much as to PDF, which
> would seem to be an argument in favour of it (since arguments against
> PDF as a Web format hinge on it presenting more problems than HTML).
> 
> Are you saying it's inherently worse than HTML for blind users, even
> setting aside the additional cost of equipment capable of reading PDF?
> Or merely that it's often problematic in practice?
> 
> My point concerned usability for sighted users!
> 
> -- 
> Nick Kew
> 
> In urgent need of paying work - see 
> http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2003 09:41:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT