Dave wrote: > > 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. >
Neither am I an accessibility expert, but I'm of necessity taking more interest in it these days. There are a number of reasons - not just about structure - why a blind user might have trouble with a PDF. An MS Word (or an RTF) document may be a more accessible alternative to a PDF. > 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). > And few Web managers will find the time and resources to create a readable standards compliant HTML version of a multi-multi-page PDF, whereas a Word document will in many cases be more doable. Kerry ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
