Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?
Maybe we need the correct person from AGIMO on this list. Having said that the spec is probably based on Word up to 2003, which is the version most Departments would be using, I don't believe Vista has been released as a SOE to any Federal Government Department as yet. Cheers, Rae On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Matthew Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rae Buerckner wrote: > >> The following is from the AGIMO website. >> [...] >> The preferred format is HTML, followed by Word/RTF, and text. >> > > They should change this from "Word" to "doc" (because Word 2007 also > includes docx and so "Word" is ambiguous). > > And obviously they should specify the version of doc (if they don't > already) such as doc as implemented in MS Word '97. > > As with PDF they should encourage the most widely understood version of the > format... with some exception to the rule for features only available in > later versions of the format (Eg, for accessibility use Microsoft Office > 2010, don't use RTF). > > > > -- > .Matthew Holloway > http://holloway.co.nz/ > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Clarification: Is RTF accessible?
Rae Buerckner wrote: The following is from the AGIMO website. [...] The preferred format is HTML, followed by Word/RTF, and text. They should change this from "Word" to "doc" (because Word 2007 also includes docx and so "Word" is ambiguous). And obviously they should specify the version of doc (if they don't already) such as doc as implemented in MS Word '97. As with PDF they should encourage the most widely understood version of the format... with some exception to the rule for features only available in later versions of the format (Eg, for accessibility use Microsoft Office 2010, don't use RTF). -- .Matthew Holloway http://holloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
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 generally not desirable to convert a PDF file to HTML, since the results are likely to have formatting and other navigational information removed. Wherever possible, the original file from which the PDF is created should be used as the basis for conversion, not the PDF file itself. If an original non-PDF file is not available, organisations may need to consider options such as using OCR software to scan and edit the PDF file to produce an accessible version. The preferred format is HTML, followed by Word/RTF, and text. It is important to note that where a document is presented in HTML format, an option should be provided for the user to download the document as a single file rather than as a (sometimes large) sequence of individual pages. Some content, such as graphs and maps, cannot be made accessible online to people who are blind or vision-impaired. In some cases it may be possible to use the HTML "Longdesc" tag to provide a verbal interpretation of pictorial content, while in other cases it may be necessary to have such content produced in accessible formats by external contractors. Departments should develop strategies for responding to requests for making content available in accessible formats, and contact information should be provided on websites so that users will be able to direct their requests to the appropriate person within the department. *Q. I'm trying to make my organisation's forms available on our website, as required by the OISO's. The only technology I've discovered for formatting complex forms for fill and print is PDF. This is not an accessible format, and means that we are not compliant with the accessibility guidelines. What do I do?* A. Although there has been some progress in making it possible for people who are blind or vision-impaired to use online PDF forms, this option is considered inaccessible for most users. It is often possible to design online forms using non-PDF techniques. See, for example, http://www.mandoforms.com, which provides guides and tools for making online forms accessible. PDF Forms can be made more accessible if authors provide enough information from the form itself for people with disabilities to gauge the relevance of the form to them. Clients can also be given the option of submitting information the form was designed to collect back via alternative means, such as email. So for example, the boxes on the form itself should have enough information annotated to them to make it clear what the form is trying to collect, and every form should have an email contact provided on the form page itself, for free text replies from people who have accessibility issues, or who simply cant get the form to work normally. Cheers, Rae On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Matthew Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > http://holloway.co.nz/ > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
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 http://holloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
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 documents they are. When I was at DITR, most of our forms were W3C CSS compliant, it's only when you get into the area of dynamic forms that it becomes complicated. I'm based in Canberra if I can be of any assistance. Cheers, Rae On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Jessica Enders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 makes the situation a little bit messier. > > Finally, I would definitely recommend semantic HTML as a first choice - > we're just looking at the other options that might be available if it isn't. > > Thanks again for all your help, > > > Jessica Enders > Director > Formulate Information Design > > http://formulate.com.au > > Phone: (02) 6116 8765 > Fax: (02) 8456 5916 > PO Box 5108 > Braddon ACT 2612 > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Jessica Enders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 27 May 2008 4:08:26 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], wsg@webstandardsgroup.org, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: 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 used correctly, RTF files can be used well by >> screen readers. Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability >> Discrimination Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on the Human Rights >> and Equal Opportunity Commission website ( >> http://hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) >> suggests that RTF is considered acceptable. >> >> Any views? >> >> Jessica Enders >> Director >> Formulate Information Design >> >> http://formulate.com.au >> >> Phone: (02) 6116 8765 >> Fax: (02) 8456 5916 >> PO Box 5108 >> Braddon ACT 2612 >> >> >> > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
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 makes the situation a little bit messier. Finally, I would definitely recommend semantic HTML as a first choice - we're just looking at the other options that might be available if it isn't. RTF is a lot like PDF - owned by a company but generally regarded as an open standard (I think Adobe might have formalized that at some point). RTF has been around so long (and is essentially so simple) that there just aren't any hidden bits to trip you up, as far as I am aware. When I developed and managed the NZ Government Web Guidelines (now showing in its latest incarnation at http://www.webstandards.govt.nz/), I specified RTF as acceptable after much consultation with accessibility advocates, so I think you'll be pretty safe specifying it. But you're right - HTML is better. Cheers Mark Harris Technology Research and Consultancy Services Ltd (Like Rae, I saw the light and got out :-) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[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 little bit messier. Finally, I would definitely recommend semantic HTML as a first choice - we're just looking at the other options that might be available if it isn't. Thanks again for all your help, Jessica Enders Director Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 Begin forwarded message: From: Jessica Enders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 27 May 2008 4:08:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], wsg@webstandardsgroup.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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 used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen readers. Also, section 2.3 of the World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes (from 2002, mind you) on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission website (http://hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) suggests that RTF is considered acceptable. Any views? Jessica Enders Director Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
