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: Michèlle <michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:12:28 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA7E86CC9639374598E27B772A9EE3BFD65942@SSO608259.frd.shsdir.nl>

Van: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Verzonden: woensdag 6 juli 2016 2:41
Aan: Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius; Jonathan Avila
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files

I've filed a bug. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/199

David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902





  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 Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius <michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>> wrote:
Wow, thank you all for your input on this matter!

Olaf, thank you for all the links you provided to tools and information regarding PDF/UA.  Jonathan and David, thanks for mentioning WCAG2ICT, I’m going to check it out.

The general opinion regarding 2.4.5 and technique PDF2 seems to be:

•         a PDF that sits on an URL and is displayed in the user agent is considered a Web Page in WCAG 2.0, not a set of web pages.

•         This means that 2.4.5 does not apply to single pages (or sections) within a PDF. Instead that PDF as a whole is considered ONE web page.

•         Techniques are not normative, but the definition of ‘web page’ is.

•         Conclusion: technique PDF2 should not be listed under sufficient techniques for 2.4.5.

I understand that the techniques are not normative, and the success criterion itself should be leading when assessing web content for conformity with WCAG 2.0. However I think it is confusing that PDF2 is listed here as a sufficient technique, not only for end users of WCAG 2.0 but also for companies that evaluate websites.

For now I think I have my answer, but maybe we could suggest this as a change for 2.4.5. Maybe it would also be useful to add some explanation about the way PDF files are seen in WCAG 2.0 (as web pages). I’m sort of new to this mailing list and the W3C community. Would it be a good idea to suggest this or file a bug? If so, what would be the correct way to do this?


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 Tuesday, 12 July 2016 13:13:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 12 July 2016 13:13:22 UTC