Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-20 Thread Jay Tanna
You could put all your pdfs on Google docs and they will be available like any other web documents like this one: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vpid=explorerchrome=truesrcid=0B1iqp0kGPjWsZjA2MTFmMTQtM2ZmYS00OWU2LWI4NjMtMzEyMjYwMjYzOGI3hl=en hth --- On Wed, 9/2/11, Neeraj Challana

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-20 Thread Jay Tanna
Hi Kerry. Neither the blind user or I were suggesting that alternatives were not a good idea, or even a requirement. I'd always recommend providing an HTML alternative if possible along with accessible (tagged) PDF. The question was about Word as as a viable alternative to PDF. I am not

RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-20 Thread Michael MD
I agree to the fact that HTML approach is the best. I normally use Google docs they can open any documents - pdfs, word, excel, images etc like any other html document. See the link:

RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Knaus, Bridget
I would be very interested in other people's experiences as well. Thanks for asking the question Neeraj. From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Neeraj Challana Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 1:19 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] PDF

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Russ Weakley
Hi Neeraj, Some questions: 1. are you also aiming to make the PDF's accessible? (i.e. tagged PDFs) 2. why PDF to Word? I have found there is little benefit in this type of conversion. I just checked with a blind user now - asking is there any advantage in Word over PDF? His answer: If the

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Dave Lane
On 09/02/11 16:00, Russ Weakley wrote: Some questions: 1. are you also aiming to make the PDF's accessible? (i.e. tagged PDFs) 2. why PDF to Word? I have found there is little benefit in this type of conversion. I just checked with a blind user now - asking is there any advantage in

RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Webb, KerryA
Dave Lane: Thanks for asking those questions, Russ, and checking with users of assistive technologies. I also wondered how moving from an open standard to a proprietary one would help anyone with anything... Perhaps because not everyone would agree with Russ' blind user, and they might

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Russ Weakley
Hi Kerry. Neither the blind user or I were suggesting that alternatives were not a good idea, or even a requirement. I'd always recommend providing an HTML alternative if possible along with accessible (tagged) PDF. The question was about Word as as a viable alternative to PDF. I am not sure it

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Dave Lane
On 09/02/11 16:55, Russ Weakley wrote: Hi Kerry. Neither the blind user or I were suggesting that alternatives were not a good idea, or even a requirement. I'd always recommend providing an HTML alternative if possible along with accessible (tagged) PDF. The question was about Word as as a

RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Webb, KerryA
Dave wrote: On 09/02/11 16:55, Russ Weakley wrote: Hi Kerry. Neither the blind user or I were suggesting that alternatives were not a good idea, or even a requirement. I'd always recommend providing an HTML alternative if possible along with accessible (tagged) PDF. The question was

RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Geary, Damien
version. -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Webb, KerryA Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 3:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion Dave wrote: On 09/02/11 16:55, Russ Weakley wrote: Hi

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Samuel Santana
: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 3:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion Dave wrote: On 09/02/11 16:55, Russ Weakley wrote: Hi Kerry. Neither the blind user or I were suggesting that alternatives were not a good idea, or even a requirement. I'd always recommend

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Grant Bailey
@webstandardsgroup.org mailto:wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion Dave wrote: On 09/02/11 16:55, Russ Weakley wrote: Hi Kerry. Neither the blind user or I were suggesting that alternatives were not a good idea, or even a requirement. I'd always

RE: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Michael MD
linux pdftohtml (you can apt-get it) Its not perfect (formatting often comes out a bit strange and the html is messy) but at least you end up with something you can edit. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything better yet, and absolutely nothing anywhere near good enough to use without needing

Re: [WSG] PDF Conversion

2011-02-08 Thread Dave Lane
On 09/02/11 20:17, Michael MD wrote: My recommendation: If its for public release and needs to be accessible or converted to other formats, don't use pdf to start with! I think it's fair to say that if the source document is poorly structured or lacks structure, you're out of luck no matter