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