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

RE: Alternative Formats

From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:14:21 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005d01c90953$0ed69810$2c83c830$@com>
Dear All,


DAISY technology is frequently considered an alternative format. It makes
extensive use of W3C specifications in this standard.


More information can be found at:



The details of the standard and links to the Structure Guidelines, which
provide extensive guidance on the correct XML markup of textbooks can be
found at:







From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Phill Jenkins
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Ryan Jean
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Alternative Formats


> . . . 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 21:15:09 UTC

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