- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:22:01 +0200
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 21:27 15/08/2010, Wayne Dick wrote: >I think this discussion is overly complicated. > >For each level 1 and 2 criterion just click to "How to meet", find the >relevant case and make sure your power point meets the sufficient >conditions. > >Don't worry if a particular screen reader can or cannot read it. If >you meet the sufficient conditions and a screen reader can't read it >then the screen reader has a bug and you should report it. But if no screen reader supports the technique you're using, the technique is not accessibility-supported. Best regards, Christophe >In a corporate environment, it is easier to train programmers how to >use the criteria and sufficient techniques than it is to write your >own guidelines or practice weird kludges. > >Screen readers should be able to read text boxes if Microsoft >identifies them as such. Developers should be able to control the >page reading order of text boxes. Microsoft's responsibility is to >make sure and identify text boxes through their API. Microsoft must >also allow developers to control the reading order, and less competent >authors to receive a correct default reading order. Screen readers >should read the API and do their job. > >Finally, the term accessible PDF is more of an advertising slogan than >a reality. Well marked up PDF still lacks accessibility support for >1.3.1, separation of presentation from information, structure and >presentation. There is still no browser or media player that >satisfies the the sufficient techniques for 1.3.1 or 1.3.2. > >Wayne Dick -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ --- "Better products and services through end-user empowerment" http://www.usem-net.eu/ --- Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 08:23:50 UTC