- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:00:52 +0300
- To: 'david poehlman' <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "'John Foliot - WATS.ca'" <foliot@wats.ca>, lguarino@adobe.com, 'W3c-Wai-Ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Yes thanks > -----Original Message----- > From: david poehlman [mailto:david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com] > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:19 PM > To: Lisa Seeman; 'John Foliot - WATS.ca'; lguarino@adobe.com; > 'W3c-Wai-Ig' > Subject: Re: PDF in WCAG 2 > > > I think you meant to say that flash animations help some > people understand better than html. > > Johnnie Apple Seed > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com> > To: "'John Foliot - WATS.ca'" <foliot@wats.ca>; > <lguarino@adobe.com>; "'W3c-Wai-Ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:43 AM > 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 12:00:27 UTC