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 viable > alternative to PDF. I am not sure it is. Though others may disagree!
I'm not an accessibility expert, but it seems pretty obvious that if the PDF isn't well structured (which would presumably make it more accessible), I can't imagine that converting it to an MS Word document will add any sensible structure that wasn't there before. Using standards compliant HTML as an alternative accessible standard makes much more sense (again, assuming the source document wasn't generated from your typical poorly structured MS Word document). Regards, Dave -- Dave Lane, Egressive Ltd [email protected] m +64212298147 p +6439633733 http://egressive.com Free/OpenSourceSoftware: because to share is human Only use Open Standards - w3.org, Drupal powers communities - drupal.org Effusion Group http://effusiongroup.com Software Patents kill innovation ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [email protected] *******************************************************************
