Nick Roper wrote:
Just to confirm, the recommendation from the agency is to replace existing html content with PDF version, not to provide PDFs as an additional alternative.
Nick, you've made it fairly clear that your question is about accessiblity in PDFs, rather than whether or not it's a good idea to use them - but I'm afraid the most common answer you're likely to get is going to be: don't rely on them exclusively.
The web is for HTML; the ability to deliver other file types is possible, but not the best option if accessiblity is desired. As printable alternatives, sure, I guess (but what's wrong with a good print style sheet?) - but I'm thinking of a number of Aust Govt sites which insist on delivering critical info as PDFs and even Word docs, which I find astonishingly short-sighted, as well as probably an abuse of accessiblity guidelines, if not legislation. What if I don't have Word installed (and why should I?)?
The site may certainly need an IA overhaul, if it's been mangled over time by too many cooks - but that's no reason to stop using HTML in favour of PDF, surely. I think the site owners should have it pointed out to them that the agency's recommendations are simply out of touch with what's needed.
HTH (a bit) N ___________________________ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
