Re: Status of RTF format?


Bruce Bailey wrote:

> > My question is, if a developer includes RTF copies of word processed
> > documents on a web site, are they obliged to include an html version in
> > order to satisfy guideline 11.1?
> Yes, absolutely.  RTF is only modestly more accessible than PDF (or Word or
> WordPerfect for that matter).

We have not been able to create an instance where an rtf file are inaccessible
(with correct use of images and layout, that also applies to html documents),
though pdf file are almost always inaccessible (for now). I can see some
justification for providing alternatives for proprietary Word  or Wordperfect
documents  (in many cases developers include an rtf equivalent of these), but
not for an html equivalent of rtf documents. If someone could demonstrate an
inaccessible rtf file, It might help me understand why this format is not an
acceptable accessible alternative for any of the above file formats.

> Sure, its a shared non-proprietary format,
> but there are no public specifications for "validity", let alone
> "accessible".

Does this mean by default that it is inaccessible because  its accessibility has
not been documented? I have a hard time justifying this without some concrete
evidence  that demonstrates rtf in an inaccessible form. I have an easier time
making html documents inaccessible than I do making an rtf files inaccessible.

Microsoft's Specs

Greg Gay
Web Projects & Instructional Design
Centre for Academic and Adaptive Technology
University of Toronto
416 978-4043
ICQ 9020587

Received on Thursday, 20 July 2000 12:04:03 UTC