Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents

Goal!  GOAL!!

the goal is universal access.  we are a long way from it, blame is the 
wrong concept, continuing to not fix it is who to "blame" we should be 
smart enough I hope to work towards a solution.

I have the ability and prefer to use plain text, and run linux so I can 
"test" stuff that is out of the most common usage, it is not to say it is 
better, just that it can or cannot be read by what I can check it with, 
there are many on this list that can check it in windows with jaws, but 
apparently the list lacks active users in Linux platform so I get to blow 
the open source horn.

Bob


On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, [iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer wrote:

> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:44:59 +0100
> From: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>
> To: accessys@smart.net, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Cc: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>,
>     "[iso-8859-1] Ramón Corominas" <listas@ramoncorominas.com>,
>     Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents
> 
> So - whom to blame?
>
> Blame PDF for the fact that documents on paper exist?
>
> Do you realize that it is because of technology that it becomes feasible in the first place to make paper more accessible than it used to be virtually  more or less forever before?
>
> I agree to the goal - move in a direction where access becomes universal, but to blame PDF (or any other format or technology for that purpose) that paper documents exist (which by definition are not, and never have been, accessible to certain groups of users) is ... well ... interesting.
>
> Next you ask to destroy all printing presses, laser and inkjet printers and photocopying machines, because they even create more documents in an accessible format (that is, on paper)?
>
> Paper is also bad, isn't it?
>
> Olaf
>
>
> Am 1 Mar 2013 um 20:45 schrieb accessys@smart.net:
>
>>
>> scanned paper documents without tags or other access features to allow them to be used by all is missing the goal.  I am not saying anything is better than the other as long as they can be used by all.
>>
>> universal access is the goal.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, [iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:33:30 +0100
>>> From: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>
>>> To: accessys@smart.net, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>> Cc: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>,
>>>    "[iso-8859-1] Ramón Corominas" <listas@ramoncorominas.com>,
>>>    Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> you are moving the target a bit too quickly for my taste. A few minutes ago you scolded PDF for being a cheap electronic print out mechanism, now you bring scanned PDFs into the game.
>>>
>>> So are you implying, HTML (or some other format) is a better format for scanned paper documents?
>>>
>>>
>>> Olaf
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 1 Mar 2013 um 18:15 schrieb accessys@smart.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree pdf has made great strides but getting archivist especially to tag the documents they scan is getting harderd and harder it seems
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>
>