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
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to