W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:11:13 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP683C2F4E6F64558DA81768FE260@phx.gbl>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
CC: Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius <michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Under WCAG a web page is determined by the definition.
Web page

a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any
other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered
together with it by a user agent
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#useragentdef>

I was on the WCAG2ICT team and there were many discussions around "sets of
pages", but this definition, I would say, is the go to place for the
definitive definition. A PDF is only a "Web Page" under WCAG if it sits at
a URL. If the same PDF is sent by email, it is not a web page, which is the
one reason for WCAG2ICT. WCAG2ICT was intended to examine whether WCAG
could actually work for Documents, and how it would work IF someone wanted
to use WCAG to make documents accessible. It was determined by the task
force that it could be used, with some switches to language and a few other
caveats. WCAG has not made a determination regarding the difference between
PDF and MS Word docs.

Under this normative definition, a PDF that is obtained from a single URL
is a web page in its entirety, so it is not a "set of web pages" but a
single web page, since it was obtained from a single URL.

It should also be noted that ANY type document that sits at a URL that fits
under this definition (rendered in a user Agent), could be considered "web
content".

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

> *> *The criterion states: ‘More than one way is available to locate a Web
> page within a set of Web pages except where the Web Page is the result of,
> or a step in, a process.’
>
>
>
> *It’s interesting you bring this up – because PDF files are considered web
> content – but other document formats are not.  For non-PDF formats the **Guidance
> on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
> (WCAG2ICT) <https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#navigation-mechanisms-mult-loc>
> **states:*
>
>
>
> *2.4.5 Multiple Ways:* More than one way is available to locate a *non-web
> document <https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_document>* within a
>  set of *non-web documents*
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_set-of-documents> except
> where the *non-web document
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_document>* is the result
> of, or a step in, a process.
>
>
>
> *Thus, for non-PDF this provision only applies to documents in a set of
> documents and not pages within a document.  Perhaps that interpretation
> applies to PDF as well – but that’s not clear.  And IMO allowing other
> documents to get away with not providing multiple ways of access is very
> unfortunate – but since I was not involved in the creation of that document
> I did not catch that until after the document was published.*
>
>
>
> I believe the general understanding based on technique PDF 2 is that a
> document is not in the same set as a set of web pages and thus the PDF
> doesn’t need to contain links to the web pages that it is hosted with.  But
> that within a PDF the pages are within a set and therefore PDF documents
> would need to have bookmarks or table of contents to the internal pages.
> Since most PDF readers also have functions to move between pages and
> automatically create bookmarks it seems like this could be met through the
> user agent without requiring the author to do this – but that is not clear.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> Jonathan Avila
>
> Chief Accessibility Officer
>
> SSB BART Group
>
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>
> 703.637.8957 (Office)
>
>
>
> Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
>
> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>
>
>
> *From:* Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius [mailto:
> michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:28 AM
> *To:* 'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'
> *Subject:* Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files
>
>
>
> Good afternoon,
>
>
>
> I’m trying to find out what is necessary to conform to success criterion
> 2.4.5 for pdf files.
>
>
>
> The criterion states: ‘More than one way is available to locate a Web page
> within a set of Web pages except where the Web Page is the result of, or a
> step in, a process.’
>
>
>
> When reading the definitions in WCAG I would think a pdf file is a web
> page, and not a set of web pages. However, one of the techniques for this
> success criterion is PDF2, creating bookmarks in pdf files. This leads me
> to believe that in WCAG 2.0 a pdf file is considered a set of web pages,
> and success criterion 2.4.5 applies. This means that to be sufficient the
> bookmarks would have to be combined with another of the mentioned
> techniques.
>
>
>
> Does this mean that to pass this success criterion every pdf file needs to
> have bookmarks, plus an extra means of navigation  such as a table of
> contents, even if it only has one page?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
>
>
> Michèlle
>
>
>
>
> ..............................................................................
>
>
>
> *Logius Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties *Wilhelmina
> van Pruisenweg 52 | 2595 AN | Den Haag |
> Postbus 96810 | 2509 JE | Den Haag
> ..............................................................................
>
> W http://www.logius.nl
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u
> niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is
> toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht
> te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van
> welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het
> elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you
> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you
> are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State
> accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks
> inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.
>
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:11:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:11:47 UTC