- From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:52:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <ADAM.GUASCH@EEOC.GOV>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Tagged PDF files are hard to edit with accessibility in mind and I would suggest further research into using Tagged PDF as it stands right now. I think there needs to be some type of survey on ALL types of assistive technology being used, and how the AT is being used, for web access. This should be a good indication of what WCAG 2.0 needs to focus on. And making the survey results public would go far in promoting the accessibility issue in the public eye. -Steve ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ said: > > When writing and testing HTML, it's standard practice to test with > multiple browsers and multiple versions of those browsers. It's also > pretty standard to look at usage stats for those browsers - how many > people are still using IE 4.0 or Netscape 4.7? Such statistics are often > unreliable, but they're still worth considering, especially if pulled > from your own server logs. > > What about screen readers? Is there any available information on usage > of various screen readers, and specifically on version? Obviously > statistics in this case would be difficult to compile, since you can't > simply pull the information from server logs. But it would be valuable. > > As an example: for a particular upcoming project, tagged PDF files are > being considered as the primary document format. When discussing the > need, if any, for alternative versions, it would be helpful to know how > many users of screen readers would be able to read a tagged PDF file, > and how many are using software that can't handle that format. > > Please note: I'm not asking for opinions on the need for alternative > versions - this is just an example of one situation in which having > statistics would be valuable. > > Any pointers to any real numbers would be greatly appreciated.
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 13:57:50 UTC