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

Re: PDF in WCAG 2

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:42:24 +0100
Message-ID: <412629F0.7080508@splintered.co.uk>
To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Joe Clark wrote:

>> 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 gather that, in the short matter of two days, the term "pretty 
> pictures" has come to act as shorthand for any use of anything other 
> than text on the Web that the author dislikes.

Would be nice if you actually read I wrote in context ("which in many 
cases originated from a print job, with lots of pretty pictures"). 
Nowhere did I say that all non-text information is pretty pictures. But 
I for one can do without simple brochureware-to-PDF, with massive 
background stock photography and such nonsense.

> Gee, aren't we *supposed* to be creating pretty pictures for all them LD 
> folks?

Again, not against pretty pictures, but not if they weigh in at 500+Kb 
simply to provide me with an the the photo of "businessman with laptop 
looking interestedly at his screen"

re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 16:42:03 UTC

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