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

I've filed a bug. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/199


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 Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius <
michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl> wrote:

> Wow, thank you all for your input on this matter!
>
>
>
> Olaf, thank you for all the links you provided to tools and information
> regarding PDF/UA.  Jonathan and David, thanks for mentioning WCAG2ICT, I’m
> going to check it out.
>
>
>
> The general opinion regarding 2.4.5 and technique PDF2 seems to be:
>
> ·         a PDF that sits on an URL and is displayed in the user agent is
> considered a *Web Page* in WCAG 2.0, not a set of web pages.
>
> ·         This means that 2.4.5 does not apply to single pages (or
> sections) *within* a PDF. Instead that PDF as a whole is considered ONE
> web page.
>
> ·         Techniques are not normative, but the definition of ‘web page’
> is.
>
> ·         *Conclusion*: technique PDF2 should not be listed under
> sufficient techniques for 2.4.5.
>
>
>
> I understand that the techniques are not normative, and the success
> criterion itself should be leading when assessing web content for
> conformity with WCAG 2.0. However I think it is confusing that PDF2 is
> listed here as a sufficient technique, not only for end users of WCAG 2.0
> but also for companies that evaluate websites.
>
>
>
> For now I think I have my answer, but maybe we could suggest this as a
> change for 2.4.5. Maybe it would also be useful to add some explanation
> about the way PDF files are seen in WCAG 2.0 (as web pages). I’m sort of
> new to this mailing list and the W3C community. Would it be a good idea to
> suggest this or file a bug? If so, what would be the correct way to do this?
>
>
>
> -Michèlle
>
> ------------------------------
> 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.
>