[Irl-dean] AAA Claim?

[brendan spillane]

Hi all,


On a similar topic

On a website which has online documents for download to be printed
out, filled in and signed e.g. application forms or documents
requiring a signature (and therefore can't be sent digitally). Would
it be your opinion that a digital version of this from would only show
the user what questions etc are on the form.

Would you suggest for situations like these facilities for the user to
download the form (in accessible .doc .pdf) for assistance later in
filling it out?

Would it be better to have a slightly roundabout alternative of
directing the user to a contact page to request contact from the
organisation regarding getting a form posted out to them? Or perhaps
help in filling it out, (though the logistics in this for high volume
forms could be quite high)

Any input on this?


Also just to clarify Barry

"...So I would never consider that a resource presented *exclusively* in PDF
Or MS-Word format could be considered as satisfying checkpoint 11.1 ..."

The presentation of the same material in both .doc and .pdf would not
comply with 11.1? But one or both and a css xhtml version?


Best,

Brendan


On 21/02/07, Tim Culhane <tim.culhane at criticalpath.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Personally I agree with Barry on this one.  If you upload some piece of
> information to your website,  and  if that information be in  pdf, word,  an
> audio file  or a graphic of some sort  (or even bog standard html),  if it
> is not accessible to your users, then the accessibility of the whole website
> suffers.
>
> There is no use having a perfectly accessible  web page  telling you where
> to download the  latest  manual or newsletter in pdf format, if you then
> download the document only to find it is unusable.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irl-dean-admin at list.eeng.dcu.ie
> [mailto:irl-dean-admin at list.eeng.dcu.ie] On Behalf Of Barry McMullin
> Sent: 21 February 2007 09:04
> To: irl-dean at list.eeng.dcu.ie
> Cc: mcmullin at eeng.dcu.ie
> Subject: Re: [Irl-dean] AAA Claim?
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Irl-dean mailing list
> Irl-dean at list.eeng.dcu.ie
> http://list.eeng.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/irl-dean
>


-- 
http://www.ilikecake.net
+353 1 658 4081

The information in this email (including attachments) is intended
solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. If you have received this in error please notify
the sender and delete the material from your computer. Any
retransmission of the contents of this mail is forbidden without the
written consent of the sender. ilikecake limited does not accept
liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or
any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent.