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: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:18:47 -0400
Message-ID: <002f01c48e83$22006e10$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com>, "'John Foliot - WATS.ca'" <foliot@wats.ca>, <lguarino@adobe.com>, "'W3c-Wai-Ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I think you meant to say that flash animations help some people understand
better than html.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com>
To: "'John Foliot - WATS.ca'" <foliot@wats.ca>; <lguarino@adobe.com>;
"'W3c-Wai-Ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:43 AM
Subject: RE: PDF in WCAG 2



SO far as I can tell, if you make the content accessible in PDF, the
conversion to html (via adobe) will make sense and be more or less
accessible.

If the PDF is inaccessible -so for example the reading order is
incorrect, then an HTML version will also have the reading order
incorrectly.

Also Adobe believe in their format and the advantage that it gives.
Different platforms come with advantages to the end user. For example
FLASH animations help people understand what to do better then
instructions in  html. Making different platforms universally accessible
may be a better long term win for accessibility then abandoning them.


Keep well
lisa Seeman


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Foliot - WATS.ca [mailto:foliot@wats.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:09 PM
> To: lguarino@adobe.com; W3c-Wai-Ig
> Subject: RE: PDF in WCAG 2
>
>
> 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
content.

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
mechanisms.

Thanks for pointing out the resource though...

JF
--
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 Monday, 30 August 2004 11:18:08 UTC

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