WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessible alternatives to html publications


From: Gareth Dart
Date: Mar 2, 2009 12:40AM

I would also concur here. The techniques for making HTML are better
understood than those for PDF/Flash and it's easier to check that you've
achieved compliance (there are a greater number of tools out there for
checking HTML than other documents). This sounds like it might be a
case of K.I.S.S to me.



Gareth Dart
Web Developer
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)
95 Promenade, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 1HZ
T 01242 211128 F 01242 211122 W www.hesa.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Peter Krantz
Sent: Friday 27 February 2009 17:18
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible alternatives to html publications

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 17:33, Varela, Marilyn (DRS)
< <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Our objective
> is that the files be searchable and section 508 compliant.

If this is your main objective I would suggest sticking to HTML. Of
course it depends on the nature of your content. Is it primarily
interactive stuff or more document centric?

If the content is primarily read on the web I would prefer HTML. You
reach the widest range of tools and you don't require users to be
equipped with specific software (PDF and flash readers).