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

RE: PDF in WCAG 2

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:00:52 +0300
To: 'david poehlman' <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "'John Foliot - WATS.ca'" <foliot@wats.ca>, lguarino@adobe.com, 'W3c-Wai-Ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <093001c48e89$02c38bd0$340aa8c0@lisaibm>

Yes

thanks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: david poehlman [mailto:david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:19 PM
> To: Lisa Seeman; 'John Foliot - WATS.ca'; lguarino@adobe.com; 
> 'W3c-Wai-Ig'
> Subject: Re: PDF in WCAG 2
> 
> 
> 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 12:00:27 UTC

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