RE: HTML5 DL Element vs. WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria

Hi,
The original question was from my point of view as a blind developer/accessibility practitioner.

Jim



-----Original Message-----
From: Ramón Corominas [mailto:listas@ramoncorominas.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:23 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Group
Subject: Re: HTML5 DL Element vs. WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria

Duff wrote:

> First, because we don't yet have software that can do a great tagging job auto-magically.

Agreed, but this is the same for sighted users and for blind users...


> Second, because the process of fixing accessibility features in PDF is akin to
 > the process of writing alternative text. In other words, it's damned
 > hard to do unless you can fully perceive the thing you are describing.

As far as I know there are no tools to create PDF files in an accessible
way, but they do exist many tools to create web pages in an accessible
way, including Notepad. While the problems regarding the "perception"
are exactly the same, the accessibility of the tool is the key factor.

I think you are asuuming that the blind user doesn't know in advance
what the content is. Maybe the user is just repairing a PDF created from
a Word document that he has created, in which the user has included
images which he knows, tables with structures and data that he already
knows, headings for content that he has created...

Indeed, you are asumming that the user is a blind user, but he can have
any other disability that implies using a keyboard or a voice
recognition system, for example.

Regards,
Ramón.



________________________________

This e-mail and any attachments to it are confidential and are intended solely for use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission. The views expressed in this e-mail message do not necessarily represent the views of Highmark, its diversified business, or affiliates.

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 19:23:38 UTC