On 6/3/2011 11:30 AM, Freckmann, Martin wrote:
Thanks to those who responded to my request. I've combined my comments
into this reply to save on traffic.
Ø*From:*li...@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On Behalf Of *Litchfield Sharon
*Sent:* Tuesday, 24 May 2011 3:18 PM
ØWhat about ...
ØVision Australia: Accessible electronic documents
(http://www.visionaustralia.org/info.aspx?page=780)
ØDefinitely NOT hearsay or folklore!
Thanks for the link, Sharon. But it is a bit folkloric, actually, in
that it's a simple assertion rather than a detailed explanation. The
same result is achieved with a properly-structured Word 97-2003
document. Conversion to RTF often trades one set of accessibility
issues for another.
No, RTF is generally used instead of the .docx format that is pumped out
by later versions of MS Word.
So really you could use either RTF or .doc, and both will work with
Openoffice. They can also be made to be accessible.
For that matter even modern PDF's providing they are produced as text
based PDFs can be accessible as addobie have done a lot of work to make
them accessible.
I like using PDF as you can keep branding in tact and the document can't
be edited by mistake.
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************