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

Re: PDF in WCAG 2

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:33:45 -0400
Message-ID: <019e01c4861b$101c8500$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Agreed, But some among us seem to think that they can post other stuff even
if it is not accessible because it is not w3c technology.  We are
maintaining that if it is posted, it needs to be accessible and to be
accessible, it needs to be a w3c technology.  I maintain that it's ok to
post something for download and even post something that is inaccessible as
long as there is a comperable accessible path.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: PDF in WCAG 2

John Foliot wrote:

> Yes, change is good.  WCAG 2.0 rightly builds upon WCAG 1.0,
> which was appropriate for it's time, but is now 5 years old.
> Flash and PDFs (for
> example) exhibit many of the same accessibility issues as
> HTML does.

I tend to agree with where John is going with this. HTML is a W3C
technology. PDF and SWF are not. WCAG says to use W3C technologies, so
why shouldn't WCAG deal with W3C technologies? Just let the outside
vendors deal with making their technologies accessible and leave it

> To make them accessible, we need to apply many of
> the same principles. The debate to me isn't about whether or
> not a technology is accessible, it is about what the primary
> delivery format should be. HTML is the most, and will
> continue to be the most universally accessible format.

I think so too. The group should be focusing on ensuring that W3C
technolgies are accessible, are used correctly and that WCAG supports
those technolgies.

Randal Rust
Covansys Corp.
Columbus, OH
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 18:33:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:29 UTC