E-mail List Archives

Re: Semantics for Indicating Accessible Version of Files

for

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Jan 28, 2009 11:05AM


<Mike>
I think that many folks feel that the fully scanned version somehow
provides more legitimacy or immutability than an electronic, text based,
version with a scanned signature. These people should take short course
in photoshop and get over it.
</Mike>
<Cliff>
Good point. So now I need to get a class in Photoshop worked into the big cheese's performance plan. (grin)
</Cliff>

>>> "Moore, Michael" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > 1/28/2009 11:45 AM >>>
<Cliff>
Yeah, but if I already have an accessible version of the original
electronic document that was used to print the copies that were signed,
why can't I just scan the signed copy (or even just its signature page)
and marry that image with the original text layer?
</Cliff>

<Mike>
What we have done, when we have access to the original accessible
electronic document, is to scan the signed document, remove just the
signature, and paste it as an image into the accessible version, with
appropriate alt text like "Signed by President Barack Obama."

If the organization has a legal obligation to keep an original signed
copy of a document, I am not sure that a scanned version would meet
those requirements anyway. The file should probably contain a printed
paper copy, possibly even notarized.

The more frequent case is for a document like a policy notification,
announcement or PR piece from a senior manager in the organization to be
posted. In this case an image of the signature in an accessible html or
pdf is a better alternative than posting a scanned version of the
document that includes the scanned signature.

I think that many folks feel that the fully scanned version somehow
provides more legitimacy or immutability than an electronic, text based,
version with a scanned signature. These people should take short course
in photoshop and get over it.
</Mike>