[WSG] Is RTF accessible?

Hello I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government agencies must provide electronic documents in an accessible format. RTF is owned by Microsoft, but most word processors can read it. Apparently if styles are

Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

Hi Jessica, The 2 formats most commonly provided formats by Government departments is PDF RTF format. Cheers, Rae On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jessica Enders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible, to the extent that

Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

Hello Rae, Wondering where you get this info, and what countries you are speaking of. - Josh Rae Buerckner wrote: Hi Jessica, The 2 formats most commonly provided formats by Government departments is PDF RTF format. Cheers, Rae On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jessica

[WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

I should clarify that I'm not a Microsoft-basher! The only reason I mentioned it is that ownership of a standard might be considered, by some, to compromise accessibility. Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text documents. I think this makes the situation a

Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

Hi Josh, I work in Private Sector now, but until 1 year ago I was had of Ministerial and Prime Ministerial Projects in the ICT Applications Branch at the Department of Industry Tourism Resources in Canberra Australia. Cheers, Rae On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Josh Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[WSG] Re: [canberra_ia_community] Is RTF accessible?

Same holds for three other Australian government organisations that I've worked in/around. It is necessary to separate this discussion from how do I make PDF accessible? Cheers, Andrew On 5/27/08, Rae Buerckner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jessica, The 2 formats most commonly provided formats

Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

Jessica Enders wrote: I should clarify that I'm not a Microsoft-basher! The only reason I mentioned it is that ownership of a standard might be considered, by some, to compromise accessibility. Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text documents. I think this

Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

Hi Jessica, Understood, I work for a company who specialise in the Adobe LiveCycle dynamic PDF technologies. The PDF RTF formats for attachments to content items, are a whole of Australian Government accessibility directive. These are typically not forms, although in some instances like Court

Re: [WSG] Re: [canberra_ia_community] Is RTF accessible?

I was thinking that XML files must be accessible but also stuctured for the purpose to deliver txt information. Michael Andrew Boyd wrote: Same holds for three other Australian government organisations that I've worked in/around. It is necessary to separate this discussion from how do I

Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen readers. RTF doesn't use 'styles' in the way that Word (or HTML) does, it applies presentation tags, the semantic based styles that Word has (e.g. Heading 1) are not there. There's an example on the Wikipedia page:

Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

Jessica Enders wrote: I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government agencies must provide electronic documents in an accessible format. Is there a list of accessibility features that a format must allow, or does the

RE: [WSG] Fwd: using fieldsets and legends (outside a form) for adding structural markup

I think your misunderstanding lies earlier than my last post. If someone wishes to use an abbr tag in the way that it was intended by the spec, then that is perfectly acceptable, obviously. If their scripting then fails in IE they have three clear choices - write a more robust script,

Re: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

This topic is very interesting. As a screen reader user I have enjoyed always getting Rich Text files. I use to get bills in HTML which was great. However, everything is now PDFs. I hate PDFs! With a little more care, you could do everything a PDF does in an HTML file. I use a RTF editor called

[WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

Hello list, I know this might seem basic, and I searched, but came up confused... Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight to me...

RE: [WSG] Is RTF accessible?

How do folks find the new OOXML format in regards to this line of thinking? In that I'm curious to see what WSG thinks of it and how it fits in with future potential. - Scott Barnes {Product Manager} Microsoft. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM: Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight to me... Hi

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the attribute tag. Kate - Original Message - From: Andrew Freedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute Tom Livingston

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

kate wrote: The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the attribute tag. or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM: Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight to me... Hi Tom,

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

On 5/27/08, Andrew Freedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM: Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real 'attributes for dummies'

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM: The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the attribute tag. Kate Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:33 AM: or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

I'm not sure exactly what the spec says, go read it, but alt stands for alternative so the content would be represented alternatively when say the other content was unavailble. Where as title is meant to provide additional information related to the content such as a title. So img

Re: [WSG] AJAX short courses london

I agree. I have rarely seen any course in web technologies that you couldn't get further for much less money with either a video tutorial from places like lynda.com or from good how to books from great publishers like new riders, friends of ed, o'reilleys, etc. you can study at your own

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight to me... Hi Tom, Try this link:

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

On May 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Freedman wrote: kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM: The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the attribute tag. Kate Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:33 AM:

Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

Jessica Enders wrote: Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text documents. Oh, ok -- it certainly cannot represent accessible forms. Even the latest RTF 1.9.1 (March 2008) does not appear to support form field labels, for example. -- .Matthew Holloway

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

On 5/27/08, Jason Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The alt attribute should always be included in order to be standards compliant, and accessible the title is optional. some accessibility software i use says it's a good idea to use a title for accessibility reasons. the software is adesigner by

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

hmm... is accessibility not a feature of standards compliance? I'm forgetting whether the W3C HTML validator will reject img elements without the alt attribute, or if it's just the accessibility validators that do so. Jason On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM, dwain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On

Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute

accessibility validators will let you know if you missed an alt attribute and will suggest adding titles where there are either sketchy titles or no titles at all. dwain On 5/27/08, Jason Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmm... is accessibility not a feature of standards compliance? I'm forgetting

Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?

The following is from the AGIMO website. FAQ *Q. We have placed a lot of our documents on our website in PDF format, which is not readily accessible to people with sight disabilities. Apart from converting these documents to alternative formats, which we can't afford, what can we do?* A. It is