- From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:32:25 -0400
- To: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
...not to mention the fact that many users don't have that kind of "dime!!!!!****" to spend... Johnnie Apple Seed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:55 AM Subject: RE: PDF in WCAG 2 > From: Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com [...] > Moreover, > this example seems > to beg for downloadable content. If simply getting on the > net is such an issue, having a local copy of the content [a > PDF for example] would be the > best solution. Is HTML not downloadable? And how does the filesize (and therefore, time to download) of HTML compare with your average PDF (which in many cases originated from a print job, with lots of pretty pictures that more often than not are still at a whopping print resolution)? > I also find it interesting that there seems to be no problem > spending web > site owners money - whatever it costs, create HTML versions > for PDFs - but users should not have to spend a dime. Call me naive, but: if we're talking about sites for the provision of goods and (commercial) services, I really don't see the problem in having the owners charged...as they're online to *make* money, no? Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 13:31:51 UTC