- From: The Snider's Web <lsnider@thesnidersweb.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:01:36 -0400
- To: "Steuerwalt, Jon C." <jon.c.steuerwalt@Maine.gov>, "'Matthew Smith'" <matt@kbc.net.au>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Jon, That is a really good point about making the info accessible-thanks for reminding me. Interesting, I think I was trying to look at it the other way round-that is why I need some guidance and advice :) I do so many PDFs for clients and have been unhappy with many of them in terms of accessibility. I think it is time to change my thinking and way of doing things. I think in the end I will have to go for two formats-the PDF for people who want and can see the full layout/design/etc. and a different format for people who don't want to see the PDF or need to use other means to do so-like a screen reader. Thanks again for the info Lisa At 05:16 PM 1/16/2003 -0500, Steuerwalt, Jon C. wrote: >Hello. I agree with Matthew's approach in general - to deploy two different >formats - though my tool set for doing this is different. As someone said >on this list some time ago, the important thing is to make the information >accessible, not the PDF. > >PDF is great for what it was initially designed to do, but that was not to >present information on the web. All the additional work required on the >author's part to make a PDF document "web accessible" plus all the work >required on the part of those users of screen readers who do utilize the >correct technologies to then make that PDF document usable still won't make >that PDF document accessible to all users. > >Why not make a [X]HTML version that's accessible for viewing on the web >almost without exception no matter what technology is employed to access it >AND post a version that can be easily converted to hardcopy instead? Here >in Maine (USA) that's how we have decided to proceed with state government >web sites. Jon
Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 12:11:23 UTC