- From: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:34:35 -0400
- To: Marti <marti@agassa.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Marti Marti wrote: > I agree that RTF does not meet the intent here of 'accessible format'. At a > minimum it requires the user to have an RTF compatible word processor which > may not be the case, particularly in 'public' connections like libraries or > kiosks. Most word processors that I am aware of are RTF compatible, though I agree that public kiosks might be one instance where RTF might be inaccessible, if the kiosk developer has not included a wordprocessor to display these document, and the user does not have remote access to software that will display it. From what I understand, Mac is the only OS currently that doesn't come standard with an RTF compatible word processor. The "Who's responsible" question comes to mind. If all operating systems come with an RTF viewer, and browsers have been configured to handle rtf files through one of these viewers, as I believe current browsers are by default, who is responsible for providing accessible content, the web developer who includes rtf as an alternative format (to pdf, doc, wpd, etc.) or the kiosk designer who must disable rtf viewer/application associations to make rtf unsupported. Likewise, our Mac folk around here inform me that OS 10 will also have a default rtf viewer installed, so soon all operating systems will be able to view these files > > Why not take it a step further to plain ascii text? From a cognitive perspective, RTF provides formatting that aids comprehension, by signifying heading levels, lists, and a variety of other meaning associated formats, as well as layout features that make text more readable. HTML formatting does much the same thing. These formats are not found in ascii text -- 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 12:40:40 UTC