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: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 18:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP2520C7704A8B3CDAF273D22FE260@phx.gbl>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Janathan

The Techniques are non-normative. The definition of Web Page is normative.
Whenever there is a discrepancy between the Normative and Non-normative
documents, the normative should prevail. Maybe we should file a bug...

>From a best practice perspective I'd always recommend PDF bookmarks, helps
many people including those with cognitive disabilities...

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

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

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 Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

> > In a public web site that can be indexed by a search engine this is
> trivial. In a closed website, there needs to be two different paths to
> arrive at any page that isn't a step in a process.
>
> So it sounds like SC 2.4.5 can be met by using external search engines -
> not site embedded search when the page is not part of the process and can
> be located from a search engine such as Google, yahoo, Bing, etc.  Seems
> like criteria that should be documented as part of the evaluation.  One
> issue that concerns me that the search string might be obscure and not
> obvious to the ordinary user which may make the search unrealistic.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:29 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Duff Johnson
> Subject: Re: Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files
>
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 16:49:58 +0200, Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> What about EPUB, this is based upon HTML. Shouldn’t it also have the
> >> same requirements as PDF?
> >
> > EPUB comes in “reflowable” and “fixed-layout” models. You choose which
> > you prefer when you author the file.
> >
> > The reflowable model is (effectively) a single web-page, so web-page
> > conventions apply.
> >
> > The fixed-layout model raises the same questions, in terms of how to
> > apply WCAG 2.0 (which only talks about “web pages”) as does, PDF,
> > DOCX, etc. I share Jonathan’s curiosity on this point.
>
> I think the simple answer is "this doesn't apply".
>
> I believe the purpose was to support navigation through "strict
> hierarchy", and by search.
>
> In a public web site that can be indexed by a search engine this is
> trivial. In a closed website, there needs to be two different paths to
> arrive at any page that isn't a step in a process.
>
> While I look at actual navigation paths, and whether they are confusing or
> hide things, since I don't need to do formal conformance evaluations but
> merely consider the actual accessibility of content, I am happy to ignore
> this criterion.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>   chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
>
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2016 22:14:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 2 July 2016 22:14:24 UTC