- From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:41:28 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hello, Nick asks: "Are you saying it's inherently worse than HTML for blind users, even setting aside the additional cost of equipment capable of reading PDF?" I am saying that PDF is inherently difficult to transform properly, and I stated my three issues. I was not talking about HTML or XML, but if produced according to the WAI guidelines, HTML is great. Best George Best George > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nick Kew > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 4:24 PM > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: RE: Jakob Nielsen Column -- PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption > > > > > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, George Kerscher wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > There are multiple issues with PDF that have been stated > over and over > > again. While I applaud the efforts to make PDF accessible, there are > > problems that are extremely difficult to overcome. > > (chop specific points) > > It seems to me that your points apply to HTML as much as to PDF, which > would seem to be an argument in favour of it (since arguments against > PDF as a Web format hinge on it presenting more problems than HTML). > > Are you saying it's inherently worse than HTML for blind users, even > setting aside the additional cost of equipment capable of reading PDF? > Or merely that it's often problematic in practice? > > My point concerned usability for sighted users! > > -- > Nick Kew > > In urgent need of paying work - see > http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html > >
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2003 09:41:35 UTC