- From: Claire Spencer <spencerc@unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:06:35 +1000
- To: 'Lisa Seeman' <lisa@ubaccess.com>, "'John Foliot - WATS.ca'" <foliot@wats.ca>, lguarino@adobe.com, 'W3c-Wai-Ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi there, As far as I am aware you cannot make a PDF truly accessible for on reason alone, whilst you may have created a structurally accessible document, it then falls to the assistive technology to read the structure. In many cases, users at home do not have the most recent versions of assistive technology or the most recent version of adobe due to $$$ and resources, so there is an accessibility gap until the two meet up. Yes, a universally accessible platform would be fantastic, but to say "FLASH animations help people understand what to do better then instructions in html." I'd say is a stretch. Nothing can beat clear concise instructional copy in compliant XHTML. The ability to understand instruction rather than interpret it is always the key. Just my two cents.... Cheers :-) Claire Spencer | spencerc@unimelb.edu.au Web Producer Web Centre The University of Melbourne Phone: +61 3 8344 0476 www.unimelb.edu.au -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Seeman Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:43 PM To: 'John Foliot - WATS.ca'; lguarino@adobe.com; 'W3c-Wai-Ig' Subject: RE: PDF in WCAG 2 SO far as I can tell, if you make the content accessible in PDF, the conversion to html (via adobe) will make sense and be more or less accessible. If the PDF is inaccessible -so for example the reading order is incorrect, then an HTML version will also have the reading order incorrectly. Also Adobe believe in their format and the advantage that it gives. Different platforms come with advantages to the end user. For example FLASH animations help people understand what to do better then instructions in html. Making different platforms universally accessible may be a better long term win for accessibility then abandoning them. Keep well lisa Seeman > -----Original Message----- > From: John Foliot - WATS.ca [mailto:foliot@wats.ca] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:09 PM > To: lguarino@adobe.com; W3c-Wai-Ig > Subject: RE: PDF in WCAG 2 > > > lguarino@adobe.com wrote: > > This is what I get for not just directing you to the specifications > > page: > > > > Interestingly Loretta, this entire exercise only serves to illustrate > why I (and others) continue to argue that *just* posting PDF files to > web sites is essentially bad practice from an accessibility > perspective. > > > a) The document (which you initially referenced) requires the > *latest* reader, something that I do not have. With an > installation of > Acrobat 5 on my system, and an upgrade cost of approximately > $150.00 USD > to Acrobat 6 (not to mention the peer reports: > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008ZGSC/104-9251542- 8727150) I couldn't see the point. So initially even I couldn't "access" the content. b) Some users (Bob at Access Systems for example) will still not be able to access this information, as his current personal set-up does not accommodate... c) I had also wonder out loud (again) why, after going through all of the steps required to make PDFs accessible (essentially - structured, semantic authoring), that the authors not *also* make the content available as HTML... Same content, different delivery mechanisms. Thanks for pointing out the resource though... JF -- John Foliot foliot@wats.ca Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 07:06:44 UTC