Re: Collections of web pages

PDF2 is a sufficient technique for 2.4.5
(related) PDF9 is sufficient technique for 2.4.1

I agree with your interpretation of whether a PDF document is a set of pages, and maybe the simple solution is to make PDF2 and PDF9 advisory for these SC.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:42 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Collections of web pages

Hi Andrew, Bruce & everyone,

During the discussion of two criteria (at least), the concept of “set of web pages” came up as a key point.


  *   Findable help: Including ‘set of web pages’ helps to scope-out the very simple one-page websites and PDFs that are less likely to have human contact details.


  *   Fixed reference points: It says “a web page or set of web pages" so that it covers ePub and non-ePub files .

Andrew mentioned that long PDFs could be considered a ‘set of web pages’, and that some PDFs techniques mention that.

As far as I can tell from our definition for a web page<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-web-page-s> and set of web pages<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-set-of-web-pages>, all of these would be considered a ‘web page’ as they are located at a single URI:

  *   A PDF;
  *   An ePub document;
  *   A ‘single page app’, unless it adjusts the URI & browser history to appear to have multiple pages.

I can’t see a reference to ‘set of web pages’ in the PDF techniques<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/pdf#PDF2>, the closest is PDF2 but that doesn’t seem to reference the definition directly.

Can anyone see an issue with the uses of “set of web pages” in these two SCs?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc