W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents

From: Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 00:08:38 +0100
Cc: Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com>
Message-Id: <9C372EE2-71C6-4511-BE26-F0F1303AB594@druemmer.com>
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi David,

Am 1 Mar 2013 um 22:48 schrieb David Woolley:

> Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>> - PDF is the most widely used final form document exchange format,
>> + and HTML is not a final form document format  or an exchange format,
>> + and ODF etc. are not final form; so what alternative do you envision
>> + when it comes to exchanging documents in their final form?
> Actually, making the document accessible means taking it out of final form, so that it can be rendered into different final forms, e.g. with much larger fonts, in the same width, or into non-visual media.

... depends on whom you ask.... There are uses beyond large print and screen reading.

Anyway, an accessible document (this does not only apply to PDF but to documents in general) makes it possible, to access all of its relevant (intended/typically perceived) content, including relevant characteristics of such content, and including contextual information, like reading order and overall document structure (at least as long as a typical and intended target audience would be able to perceive/determine it).

As it is possible to access a well tagged PDF (e.g. according to the PDF/UA standard , ISO 14289-1) in such a manner that all of its contents, relevant characteristics, and contextual information can be accessed, I think that makes PDF an accessible document format (if created/used accordingly, pretty much like concrete for sidewalks and curbs ;-)  ).

Whether you call that 'taking it out of final form' or just accessing it - I don't care that much, as long as the accessibility aspect is not  denied.

> I believe one of the attractions, to businesses, of final form documents was that it was difficult to remove the branding and emotive styling from the document, and even to stop the contents being re-purposed.  As such, accessible PDF is probably even seen as a threat by them.

PDF is actually many things to many different people. At least in some years Adobe made a billion dollars or so per year by selling PDF technology. And there are many many other vendors making money with PDF technology. And there are developers like Apple (PDF is a core component of the operating systems for Mac computers and for iPhones/iPods and iPads), Microsoft (Windows 8 has built-in albeit basic PDF imaging support, Microsoft Office lets you save out PDF files directly since 2007, Office 2013 lets you open a PDF file and edit it using Word 2013), Mozilla (FireFox now renders PDF in the browser) and Google (Chrome renders PDF in the browser). I am not sure whether that's any indication of PDF being wrong or missing the boat....

> Basically, being revisable form is one of the requirements for being accessible.

I think here I have to fully disagree - why would an accessible document have to be revisable? Should the Bible or the Koran or the constitution - or rather the way they are presented - be revisable in order to be considered accessible? 


> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 23:09:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:47 UTC