W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

RE: Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 18:55:47 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB272B978759D2001E5520B6D9B260@BY2PR03MB272.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Ø  Under this normative definition, a PDF that is obtained from a single URL is a web page in its entirety, so it is not a "set of web pages" but a single web page, since it was obtained from a single URL.

So this raises questions about SC 2.4.5 and others as they apply to PDFs served up from http*


·         Do these PDFs then need to provide links to the HTML pages that they are included with?

·         Does this mean that every website must have two or more links to each PDF?

·         Why do we have sufficient techniques like PDF2<https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/pdf.html#PDF2> on the creation of bookmarks associated with the SC if intra-document links when this doesn’t help you meet SC 2.4.5?

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 2:11 PM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files

Under WCAG a web page is determined by the definition.
Web page

a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#useragentdef>

I was on the WCAG2ICT team and there were many discussions around "sets of pages", but this definition, I would say, is the go to place for the definitive definition. A PDF is only a "Web Page" under WCAG if it sits at a URL. If the same PDF is sent by email, it is not a web page, which is the one reason for WCAG2ICT. WCAG2ICT was intended to examine whether WCAG could actually work for Documents, and how it would work IF someone wanted to use WCAG to make documents accessible. It was determined by the task force that it could be used, with some switches to language and a few other caveats. WCAG has not made a determination regarding the difference between PDF and MS Word docs.

Under this normative definition, a PDF that is obtained from a single URL is a web page in its entirety, so it is not a "set of web pages" but a single web page, since it was obtained from a single URL.

It should also be noted that ANY type document that sits at a URL that fits under this definition (rendered in a user Agent), could be considered "web content".

Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote:
> The criterion states: ‘More than one way is available to locate a Web page within a set of Web pages except where the Web Page is the result of, or a step in, a process.’

It’s interesting you bring this up – because PDF files are considered web content – but other document formats are not.  For non-PDF formats the Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT)<https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#navigation-mechanisms-mult-loc> states:

2.4.5 Multiple Ways: More than one way is available to locate a non-web document<https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_document> within a set of non-web documents<https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_set-of-documents> except where the non-web document<https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_document> is the result of, or a step in, a process.

Thus, for non-PDF this provision only applies to documents in a set of documents and not pages within a document.  Perhaps that interpretation applies to PDF as well – but that’s not clear.  And IMO allowing other documents to get away with not providing multiple ways of access is very unfortunate – but since I was not involved in the creation of that document I did not catch that until after the document was published.

I believe the general understanding based on technique PDF 2 is that a document is not in the same set as a set of web pages and thus the PDF doesn’t need to contain links to the web pages that it is hosted with.  But that within a PDF the pages are within a set and therefore PDF documents would need to have bookmarks or table of contents to the internal pages.  Since most PDF readers also have functions to move between pages and automatically create bookmarks it seems like this could be met through the user agent without requiring the author to do this – but that is not clear.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957<tel:703.637.8957> (Office)

Visit us online: Website<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>

From: Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius [mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:28 AM
To: 'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>'
Subject: Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files

Good afternoon,

I’m trying to find out what is necessary to conform to success criterion 2.4.5 for pdf files.

The criterion states: ‘More than one way is available to locate a Web page within a set of Web pages except where the Web Page is the result of, or a step in, a process.’

When reading the definitions in WCAG I would think a pdf file is a web page, and not a set of web pages. However, one of the techniques for this success criterion is PDF2, creating bookmarks in pdf files. This leads me to believe that in WCAG 2.0 a pdf file is considered a set of web pages, and success criterion 2.4.5 applies. This means that to be sufficient the bookmarks would have to be combined with another of the mentioned techniques.

Does this mean that to pass this success criterion every pdf file needs to have bookmarks, plus an extra means of navigation  such as a table of contents, even if it only has one page?

Thanks for any help!

Michèlle

..............................................................................
Logius
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties
Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 52 | 2595 AN | Den Haag |
Postbus 96810 | 2509 JE | Den Haag
..............................................................................
W http://www.logius.nl<http://www.logius.nl/>


________________________________
Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.

Received on Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:56:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:56:20 UTC