W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:53:30 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


At 17:16 11/05/2007, Bailey Bruce wrote:

>Sorry Christophe to be so harsh here...
> > I hope this helps.
>If there is a point to this exercise, it has to be that one *knows* that
>an HTML version is available.  So I am not sure how productive working
>from Google key word hits will be.

I used Google merely to find examples of PDF files; these PDF files were
the sample (admittedly small) that I looked at to find if it is possible
to derive an HTML version from the location of the PDF file.
I did not suggest that people with disabilities should use search engines
external to a site to find an HTML version of a PDF file found on that site.

> > I tested this with PDF, but scenarios with other file types are also
>For the sake of our experiments, I concur that we are try to find HTML
>versions from PDFs.  It is only for the sake of argument that we are
>making the fairly presumption assumption that the PDFs are not
>accessible, and the equally outrageous leap of faith that the HTML
>version are.

I never said that PDF files are always inaccessible and HTML always
accessible! Sheesh...
I merely tried to find examples of PDF that may or may not have
an alternative version, and see how easy it is to find them.
There are too many websites with accessibity issues to require that
I use examples where the HTML version is accessible.

> > turns up the document at
> > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9716/30679/01421586.pdf
> >From the title I found this page, which makes me think that this
>document is available *only* as PDF.
>Since I am not an IEEE member, your URL redirected me to a logon page.
>Is this an example of the same technology we would like to have direct
>people to accessible versions?

It was an bad example to send to the list, then.

> > The same search also turns up the document at
> > http://www.iovs.org/cgi/reprint/48/5/2383.pdf
>Same problem.


> > I eventually got to the page at
> >
> > which contains a link to the above PDF file, but not to an HTML
>Right, which implies pretty strongly than an HTML version does *not*
> > A Google search for "monotype chronicles" in the domain
>"www.monotypefonts.com" only finds the PDF version.
>The URL hacking and search methods all assume than an HTML version
>exists.  If an accessible version does not exist, then the  site fails.
>The question is about how reasonable it is to get to the accessible
>version from the inaccessible alternate version.  The question presumes
>an accessible version exists, so these failures are not so helpful for
>invalidating the approach.  Likewise, the one success does not prove the
>techniques acceptable.

In last week's telecon, a potential technique to derive an accessible version
from the location of an inaccessible version was discussed, complete with
a suggestion for plugins etc. That's the background of the URL hacking thing
Now I'll move to things where my efforts are hopefully more appreciated.

Best regards,


Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group 
on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 15:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:37 UTC