W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Screen readers - usage stats?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:48:25 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200404191948.i3JJmPL00995@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

> Or specifically, tiny runs of text, since it has no word-wrap,
> and just as with PCL and other page layout stuff, there is neither

In theory it can do better, and when I've challenged the likely total
lack of sensible reading order in the past, the SVG lobby have pointed
to their accessibility paper.

However even PDF can also do a lot better than the typical PDF you see. 
Typical PDF has nearly every character individually placed and no 
space characters, but the design of PDF doesn't require that, it is
the PostScript print drivers and word processors that cause the problem.
It is actually an explicit design aim of PDF that it be possible
to extract the underlying plain text.

> in the quality of the image when zoomed, making it good for a group of low
> vision users. Unlike bitmapped images it doesn't lose quality when zoomed.

I'd question this, at least for large magnifications, as people with good
sight will be seeing pixellated image at their normal viewing scales.
Non-integer magnifications might be a problem.
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 01:28:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:28 UTC