W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2008

RE: Alternative Formats

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:51:05 -0500
To: "Ryan Jean" <ryanj@disnetwork.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF72F09065.9A7AE7CA-ON862574B3.0066F759-862574B3.006D0D09@us.ibm.com>
> . . . Is there anyone specifically in charge of alternative formats, not 
just web accessibility? Such as W3C has standards for web accessibility.

Not that I know of.  That was one of my points earlier, that the 

". . . [WCAG 2.0]  'guidelines' apply to any and all file formats (also 
referred to as technologies), . . .  neither WCAG, 508, or any of the 
other "standards"[groups] really address which file formats are better or 
worse alternatives to the other. . ." - its always changing anyways.

There are probably best practices guidelines posted at TRACE, WebAIM, and 
maybe even www.section508.gov.  For example, inside IBM we post a list of 
best practices when holding a meeting that suggestes the meeting holder 
ask the attendee if they have any special formats requests, such as 
electronic copies (via e-mail, memory stick, or CD-ROM) or large print. We 
use to recommend asking for Braille, but most prefer electronic format 
that allows them to Braille later on their favorite printer.

Hope that helps.

Phill Jenkins
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 19:51:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:38 UTC