Thread Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 12:50 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Document vs electronic document"
- Previous message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Document vs electronic document"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I think we are saying they shouldn't use them for some types of information.
Again - note that in WCAG we have methods described for accessible text
files - but they are limited to the type of presentation you get in emails.
In fact - now that I think of it. if your text file can survive multiple
replies with all their >> marks without being destroyed (as a table would)
- it probably passes (grin). (or rather - text that meets the guidelines
would still be usable after this.)
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:02 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Document vs electronic document
> Hi Andi,
> > To Peter's concern, what is the objective you're trying to
> achieve? I
> > don't think we want to make it so that all text documents
> will pass.
> > If someone creates a table in a text file by using a
> monospaced font,
> > lining things up in columns, and drawing cell borders with ASCII
> > characters, that should not pass.
> I agree, that example should not pass. We know how to encode
> language into an HTML document. We know how to do so in ODF
> documents (and I presume PDF and OOXML and...). We don't
> know how to encode language into an "ASCII document" (e.g. a
> .txt file). When this provision was generalized from Web to
> everything, I think we overgeneralized.
> Do we want to say that governments cannot use .txt files anymore?
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > Hi Gregg, Andi,
> > I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to "simple
> > document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we could
> specify this
> > for something like a "document content format", which
> implies a level
> > of richness and functionality. But not for all documents.
> > Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed this
> > richness, then maybe language like this could work.
> > Regards,
> > Peter Korn
> > Accessibility Architect,
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> >> In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic
> >> - we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
> >> For example - it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
> >> The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages or
> >> documents can be programmatically determined.
> >> Gregg
> >> ------------------------
> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> >> Director - Trace R & D Center
> >> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> >> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
> >> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
> >> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
> >> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
> >> ---
- Next message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Document vs electronic document"
- Previous message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Document vs electronic document"