W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:01:35 -0800
To: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
CC: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EE43A638A0C5E34E80AF78EFE940FC2C01B72585FE@nambx09.corp.adobe.com>
Could you please provide the name of a Mac or Linux user agent that supports the accessibility features of PDF? If not, the only environment where PDF is accessibility supported is Windows (yes, not only JAWS).

[AWK] Sure. On the Mac and iOS preview provides access to PDF documents, albeit in a more limited way than you get with Adobe Reader on Windows.  For Linux Adobe Reader has provided support but it was never as complete as on Windows and has taken some steps backward since the main support work was done.  In all versions, users are able to save the PDF content to a text file, which doesn't qualify as anywhere near full support, but does help some users.

Therefore, I would say that PDF can only be considered accessibility supported for "closed environments" where we can ensure that only Windows is used, but never for publicly available website where users could access from many different platforms.

[AWK] Another good point here is that accessibility supported is not applied like a warm (or wet) blanket on an entire technology.  Accessibility supported applies to _features_ of technologies.  You can have a technology that is regarded as highly accessible, but may not have sufficient support for some new features.  For example, should we regard the longdesc attribute as accessibility supported?

I am not sure if "all technologies" are not supported "to some degree". 
As far as I know, most accessibility features of HTML are well supported on Windows, MacOS and Linux, and also on iOS (maybe Android is not so good). I think it is unrealistic to mention other platforms for which there is no AT at all, since they are not used by those users that do need the ATs.

[AWK] If you're saying that "most accessibility features" then you might be agreeing with me.  If you can say "all accessibility features are well supported" on the platforms you name then we disagree on this point.  
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 14:02:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 14:02:53 GMT