On Jun 7, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Nick Gleitzman wrote:
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.
From WCAG Samurai Errata:
"We ban most PDFs: PDFs that should be HTML are banned unless they
are accompanied by HTML. All other PDFs have to be tagged."
Andrew
109B SE 4th Av
Gainesville
FL 32601
Cell: 352-870-6661
http://www.andrewmaben.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In a well designed user interface, the user should not need
instructions."
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
