Comments on: WCAG Samurai Peer Review: Part 1

By: Stevie D

Stevie D — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:03:45 +0000

Joe Clark:

PDFs are not loaded into a Web page

Most PDFs I come across are loaded within the browser window rather than in a separate application. (This makes them even more confusing, for a lot of people).

I don’t see why you think you can ignore the use of PDFs – they are still part of the website, whether they are in HTML format or not. If they form an integral and essential part of the website – just like HTML pages, audio and video clips, etc – they must be accessible. If the PDFs are not, in themselves, tagged and accessible, the information must be available in an alternative accessible format. Likewise, I wouldn’t want to see essential components of a webpage published as linked .doc (or .odt!) files unless these were written so as to be fully accessible. Such documents do form part of the content of websites, much as we might sometimes wish they didn’t!

I would have thought that producing guidelines on making content on websites accessible was what the WCAG was all about. I’m sorry that you seem to think otherwise.

By: Spider Trax » WCAG Samurai Peer Review: Part 2

Spider Trax » WCAG Samurai Peer Review: Part 2 — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:04:14 +0000

[...] to my previous post, I’m continuing to read through Gian Sampson-Wild’s technical review of the WCAG [...]

By: Black Widow

Black Widow — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:35:41 +0000

Gary: Duly noted. I’m still blushing over that particular gaffe …

By: Black Widow

Black Widow — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:34:20 +0000

Gian: Please accept my apologies over the pronoun mix-up. In theory, I’m the last person who should have fallen into that particular gender trap since I’ve also been on the receiving end of it too. I’ve amended the post accordingly and self-administered a mental slap on the wrist.

With regard the the PDF issue, however, surely there has to be a point where the web designer’s responsibility stops? Having done our part to try and ensure that a PDF is as accessible as possible, I’m not convinced that we should be making up any remaining shortfalls. That’s Adobe’s responsibility – not ours.

By: Black Widow

Black Widow — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:28:55 +0000

Joe: That’s really thin ice there. I can easily see some people arguing that video files offered as links are not loaded into a web page and are viewed/dealt with outside of the browser and that, therefore, there’s no need to caption them.

If you do feel there’s a real distinction to be made here, might I suggest that we need a very clear definition of what constitutes a browser plugin and what is a standalone application? Otherwise, I can see a very big loophole opening up.

By: Gary Barber

Gary Barber — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 08:31:29 +0000

FYI Gian is a “she”.. good points however.

By: Gian Sampson-Wild

Gian Sampson-Wild — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:13:08 +0000

I see no contradiction with your argument and what I wrote in my peer review. In all the examples above the provision of information via non-HTML (Flash, PDF etc) was an alternative to existing content within the web site. Where content exists in a web site and an alternative Flash or PDF version is provided then I do believe the site is accessible. What I do have a problem with is content – say a manual like you described above – being provided only in PDF with no alternative. Even if the PDF is tagged using the accessibility features in Adobe Acrobat, there still will be people with disabilities that can’t access it.

And just for the record – I am female.

Gian Sampson-Wild

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:41:47 +0000

Iâ€™m willing to look at further requirements for PDF, but PDFs are not loaded into a Web page and are not non-text content. PDFs are not Web content any more than zip files are. You download both and deal with them outside the browser. Sorry, kids.