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


From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:09:21 -0400
To: <lguarino@adobe.com>, "W3c-Wai-Ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003101c48b65$86cbafb0$6601a8c0@bosshog>

lguarino@adobe.com wrote:
> This is what I get for not just directing you to the specifications
> page: 

Interestingly Loretta, this entire exercise only serves to illustrate
why I (and others) continue to argue that *just* posting PDF files to
web sites is essentially bad practice from an accessibility perspective.

	a) The document (which you initially referenced) requires the
*latest* reader, something that I do not have.  With an installation of
Acrobat 5 on my system, and an upgrade cost of approximately $150.00 USD
to Acrobat 6 (not to mention the peer reports:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008ZGSC/104-9251542-8727150) I
couldn't see the point.  So initially even I couldn't "access" the

	b) Some users (Bob at Access Systems for example) will still not
be able to access this information, as his current personal set-up does
not accommodate...

	c) I had also wonder out loud (again) why, after going through
all of the steps required to make PDFs accessible (essentially -
structured, semantic authoring), that the authors not *also* make the
content available as HTML... Same content, different delivery

Thanks for pointing out the resource though...

John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   1.866.932.4878 (North America) 
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 12:09:28 UTC

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