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: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:32:25 -0400
Message-ID: <00e101c486ba$21cd2cb0$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

...not to mention the fact that many users don't have that kind of
"dime!!!!!****" to spend...

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: PDF in WCAG 2



> From: Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com
[...]
> Moreover,
> this example seems
> to beg for downloadable content.  If simply getting on the
> net is such an issue, having a local copy of the content [a
> PDF for example] would be the
> best solution.

Is HTML not downloadable? And how does the filesize (and therefore,
time to download) of HTML compare with your average PDF (which in
many cases originated from a print job, with lots of pretty pictures
that more often than not are still at a whopping print resolution)?

> I also find it interesting that there seems to be no problem
> spending web
> site owners money - whatever it costs, create HTML versions
> for PDFs - but users should not have to spend a dime.

Call me naive, but: if we're talking about sites for the provision of
goods and (commercial) services, I really don't see the problem in
having the owners charged...as they're online to *make* money, no?

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 13:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:44 UTC