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

RE: PDF in WCAG 2

From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:26:02 -0400
Message-ID: <B239BEDED044074C8E2CCC3A9162F2A90A26D90B@swilnts804.wil.fusa.com>
To: <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

But web site owners do?!!!!!!!

The point being, somewhere there exists a middle ground where I deliver "accessible" content and the user uses tools that can access it.  Both sides and the middle [proprietary file creators - PDF] must share the effort.  As for PDFs, shouldn't Adobe be tasked with providing a reader that is accessible and can read/transform PDF files in an accessible manner - for all platforms?  And PDFs in particular should rise up to this challenge because they are supposed to be portable.

Kurt Mattes
Application Development Analyst
Technical Lead - Web Accessibility
[302] 282-1414 * Kurt_Mattes@BankOne.com


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of david poehlman
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:32 AM
To: Patrick Lauke; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: PDF in WCAG 2



...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






**********************************************************************
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you
**********************************************************************
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 16:26:20 UTC

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