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: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 17:55:31 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB27291400E77E0C0C90060BE9B380@BY2PR03MB272.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
[David wrote] 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...

Yes I am well aware, but when we have a sufficient technique we are saying the working group has evaluated this and the working group documents this technique as a way to meet the SC.  If it doesn’t allow you to meet it then it’s silly to call it a sufficient technique – it’s a bug and should not be sufficient.


Ø  From a best practice perspective I'd always recommend PDF bookmarks, helps many people including those with cognitive disabilities...
Yes, of course, me too.  That’s why it should be advisory.

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 6:14 PM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Conforming to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.5 (Multiple Ways) for pdf files

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



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 Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto: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<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:29 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more at http://yandex.com


Received on Monday, 4 July 2016 17:56:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 4 July 2016 17:56:05 UTC