- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:57:47 -0500
- To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Cc: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF68446474.CBDE3885-ON86256EF5.00554D84-86256EF5.0057B11B@us.ibm.com>
>I think we're getting off the track. The question is not whether there is >text in pdf or not or whether I can google it, the question is whether I can >use it as it is and the answer is mostly no. > >Johnnie Apple Seed I don't understand this logic. That because developers mostly don't follow guidelines for making the content in PDF documents compliant - we should require them instead to convert the content to HTML and make it compliant with HTML guidelines? If they didn't follow PDF guidelines why would they follow HTML guidelines? The format is not the problem - it's whether the content follows the guidelines for that format! I would guess that there are more noncompliant HTML pages than noncompliant PDF pages - so does that mean we should lobby against HTML? of course not. One of the things WCAG 2.0 is trying to do is separate the techniques for accessible content (in formats such as HTML, CSS, PDF, FLASH, SMIL, XHTML, etc.) from the principles of accessible content - also known as the guidelines & checkpoints in WCAG 2.0. If you mostly can't use PDF as it is - ask yourself why - is it because the author didn't follow guidelines? or is it because there isn't a guidelines for that particular issue?, or is it because the assistive technology and or browser doesn't support that particular feature or format? or what? Regards, Phill Jenkins
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 16:09:23 UTC