Re: documentation question

The accessibility plug-in for acrobat 4.0 for ms-windows will do some type 
of OCR conversion of the text in the document image.
http://access.adobe.com/

Keyboard commands are used to switch between a image view and a text only view.

Although I would not necessarily call the text information from the Adobe 
file accessible since text information from the original ADF document is 
not necessarily in a logical order and would most often not satisfy the 
conformance requirement of  WCAG.

Checkpoint 11.1 in the current UA guidelines requires complying to the WCAG 
addresses the concern over how electronic documentation needs to be created 
in an accessible form.

Jon



At 09:38 AM 10/30/99 -0400, Denis Anson wrote:
>I can give an example of how electronic documentation might be inaccessible.
>
>Yesterday, as I was leaving work, I chanced upon some of our faculty
>creating on-line materials for the education department.  They were scanning
>images of old handouts into electronic form, then converting the images to
>PDF format for posting to the web.  All of this information would be
>electronic (no paper anywhere), but would be completely inaccessible, since
>it wasn't even PDF of a word processor page, but PDF of a graphic image of a
>page!
>
>Any well meaning but clueless company might do the same thing, and have no
>idea why their material wasn't accessible.
>
>Denis Anson
>
>----------
> >From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
> >To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> >Cc: WAI User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
> >Subject: Re: documentation question
> >Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999, 9:26 PM
> >
>
> > agreed.  Thanks!
> > Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >>
> >> David Poehlman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > is it possible for documentation to conform to wcag and still be
> >> > inaccessible?
> >>
> >> I think it's possible for a document
> >> to conform to WCAG and not be accessible. Even if WCAG
> >> were perfect (which it's not), it would still be possible.
> >> But if WCAG is good, it will be unlikely.
> >>
> >> As to your proposal below, I think we don't need to add the
> >> word "accessible". We could say "Ensure that you have
> >> accessible electronic documentation." But to the question
> >> "How do you know it's accessible?" the best we can answer
> >> today with any supporting material is "If it conforms to WCAG."
> >> So we can jump straight to "Ensure you have documentation
> >> that conforms to WCAG."
> >>
> >>  - Ian
> >>
> >> >  or to put it another way, would it be redundant to add
> >> > the word accessible to the following taken from the minutes?
> >> > >
> >> > > Does accessible doc checkpoint apply to non Web-based docs?
> >> > >
> >> > > Proposed: Add "electronic".
> >> > >
> >> > > CMN: But must add that documentation must be available in electronic
>form.
> >> > > "Ensure that there is a
> >> > > version of the product documentation that conforms to WCAG 1.0"
> >>
> >> That's an interesting question. I
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> >> Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
> >
> > --
> > Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> > Touching The Internet:
> > mailto:poehlman@clark.net
> > Voice: 301.949.7599
> > ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
> > http://poehlman.clark.net
> > Dynamic Solutions Inc.
> > Best of service
> > for your small business
> > network needs!
> > http://www.dnsolutions.com
> >
> > ---sig off---
> >
> >

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Monday, 1 November 1999 10:16:09 UTC