[Irl-dean] AAA Claim?

[Matthew Ovington]

Hi

Just a question for Barry on PDF (and anyone else who feels like answering!)

Many government bodies use PDF for forms. The forms are intended for 
download only, have to be filled in by hand and posted with a signature 
(original copy required). Because the form is only acceptable by 
administrators in its printed format, using PDF here would be 
acceptable. A HTML alternative to the form (which can't be submitted 
electronically) but looks the same *might* be OK but it would not print 
out consistently, and would be likely to cause confusion for the user 
(many people would just hit print, and not know how to control print 
settings, plus you'd need to use fixed sizing to try and control the 
visual presentation of the form for printing) and for the scheme 
administrators.

If the form did not need to be signed then I'd say a web form would be a 
great alternative, with many advantages over a paper document - like 
motor tax!

However, is that an example where PDF is 'appropriate' technology? And 
HTML/CSS is inappropriate? Being able to download a PDF and fill it in 
saves having to go down to the Council office...

But other than certain rare examples, I'd totally agree with Barry (it's 
not a case of either/or) and PDF is great for downloading and storing 
offline,  and as a supplement to more accessible HTML documents.

Best regards

Matthew



Barry McMullin wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, brendan spillane wrote:
> 
> 
>>It had not occurred to me that 11.1 referred to document conversion,
>>as I have always assumed this was covered by 11.3. While I would agree
>>that it is a good thing to use W3C technologies 'when they are
>>available and appropriate', currently (to my knowledge) there is no
>>W3C technology which has the same properties as pdf/doc regarding
>>printability / portability, and offline readability (as previously
>>discussed in the list)
> 
> 
> Hi Brendan -
> 
> Many thanks for that clarification - it was certainly helpful.
> 
> I absolutely agree that PDF, in particular, has certain definite
> advantages over (X)HTML+CSS for certain use cases, especially
> printing.  Indeed, I advocate and use PDF frequently for that
> very reason.
> 
> Conversely, for general "electronic" rendering (whether
> on-screen, braille, speech etc.) (X)HTML+CSS is clearly
> "available and appropriate", and, if it is properly used,
> actually preferable to PDF or MS-Word.
> 
> So I would never want to present this as a question of *either*
> PDF *or* (X)HTML+CSS.  They each have their role and, in many
> cases (particularly for longer documents) providing both would be
> my preferred option (and, as Brendan notes, providing multiple
> alternative formats is specifically endorsed by checkpoint 11.3,
> albeit at priority 3).
> 
> That all said, in my opinion at least, the fact that PDF (or
> MS-Word etc.) might be preferred for *some* use cases does not,
> in itself, mean that there should be some sort of "blanket
> exemption" from checkpoint 11.1.  So I would never consider that
> a resource presented *exclusively* in PDF or MS-Word format could
> be considered as satisfying checkpoint 11.1, just because that
> format works better than any W3C technology for printing (or
> "portability" or whatever).  And, just to be clear, I do not
> consider this as some kind of "technicality" or "mere compliance"
> issue: it generally has direct and very tangible effects on
> accessibility for users with a wide variety of disabilities; or,
> to put it another way, I think it is absolutely proper and
> appropriate that it should apply here at priority 2.
> 
> So I would say there is an important asymmetry here: a resource
> that is provided exclusively in XHTML+CSS can meet 11.1 (and thus
> possibly meet Double-A conformance); but, arguably, and depending
> on the context, might not meet 11.3 (and thus might still fail
> Triple-A conformance).  But a resource provided exclusively in
> PDF or MS-Word format will not even meet 11.1 (and thus fail
> Double-A conformance, quite independently of 11.3).
> 
> But, it's getting lonely up here on the soapbox. I'm not a W3C
> spokesman. I'm not even a member of the WCAG working group. I'm
> just one person trying to make sense of what WCAG 1.0, as
> written, actually means. So I'd be very pleased to hear others
> comment just on this one specific question of whether PDF and
> MS-Word resources should be exempt from the application of
> checkpoint 11.1 (or, for that matter, any other potentially
> relevant checkpoints).
> 
> (I know that I've still left Brendan's original question - of the
> *scoping* of WCAG conformance claims - hanging; and I would still
> like to get back to it ... sometime ...)
> 
> Thanks - Barry.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Irl-dean mailing list
> Irl-dean at list.eeng.dcu.ie
> http://list.eeng.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/irl-dean
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Best regards

Matthew

_____________________________________________________
Open Interface Ltd
Morrison Chambers, 32 Nassau Street, Dublin 2
phone: +353 1 6722050        fax: +353 1 6339719
http://www.openinterface.ie


This email may contain information which is confidential and/or 
privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, 
be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the 
contents is prohibited. If you have received this electronic 
transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return 
email and delete the material from your computer.