E-mail List Archives

Re: Semantics for Indicating Accessible Version of Files

for

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Jan 28, 2009 8:50AM


I commiserate, because I see the same thing coming down the road for my agency.

How about "signed copy" (or "as submitted," if it's something your agency received) and "accessible version"?

If it's a page that lists many such files, how about a properly marked up table, with the two versions in separate columns?

You know what would be a really great answer? To be able to marry the image layer of one PDF with the text layer of another. That way the accessible text layer could be added to the signed image layer, and we could post just one file. But I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea what it would entail to make that possible.

>>> "Moore, Michael" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > 1/28/2009 9:08 AM >>>
How about picture of document and document? <grin/>

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Randy Pearson
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:19 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Semantics for Indicating Accessible Version of
Files

Short answer: management decision.

Longer answer: (1) original may have legal implications, (2) original
shows signature, (3) concern of whether text translation is 100%
accurate, etc.

-rp


-----Original Message-----

Randy Pearson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are working with a website that has myriad old PDF files that are
scanned
> PDF images, and obviously not accessible. Over time, we will be adding
> accessible alternatives, but also keeping the originals.
>
> Our question is, what is the proper semantic technique for indicating
that
> one of these files is the accessible version of the other? The site
pages
> currently list files in an HTML table, with one row per file (columns
for
> the hyperlinked file, file size, etc.). We can add the accessible file
in a
> new row right after the scanned file, but how should we indicate the
> relationship?

Why not simply replace the inaccessible version with the accessible one?

Or is there a significant difference between the two beyond the
accessibility work that was done on them?

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke