- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
- cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Well, except for the fact that you would apparently need to train anyone using assistive technologies to download the documents in another application, becuase the assistive technology hooks are not available when the application is used inside a browser, you are unlikely to find an accessibility argument to support your case. You could point out that the bandwidth hit is higher, that the requirements of accountability mean someone will have to keep on owning these kinds of systems, that they are committing themselves to buying more of the same forever instead of using an open format that would allow migration to free software (and still be readable and editable using their current systems) or whatever. I don't think any of those are accessibility issues. I would like a strong accessibility argument for a long holiday on the beach, if anyone can provide it. But I suspect that may be even less likely to appear. (If you do have one, please send it off-list <grin/>) Sorry, but I don't see how this list can help. Charles On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Scarlett Julian (ED) wrote: The users for this portion of the site are schools that all have a common desktop installation (MS Office 97, NT4, IE5+) and hence the specificity of my question. Ideally I would get all infomation presented in html but to do this I have to get the info owners in our organisation to agree. They are under the illusion that because their client group all have Office that it is ok to serve up Office files rather than html pages. I need a solid argument why they can't do this .
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 11:37:53 UTC