WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Html from a .pdf file, what is the best way?

for

From: Ron Stewart
Date: Apr 7, 2010 1:54PM

John once again I guess we need to agree to disagree. As a reading medium
many feel, including myself, that DAISY3 is superior to standard HTML in
particular when we are talking about large documents.

The original conversation was about accessibility to folks who have B/VI
related disabilities and with a document of 2000 pages I would not look to
HTML first. I for one would not want to have to navigate a document of this
size in HTML.

Here is my reasoning:
1. There are free DAISY players available.
2. Structured HTML as well as indexed Mp3's are a byproducts of the DAISY
production process.
3. Individual preference and the "needs" and those of individuals with
print related disabilities can be easily achieved by a single production
process.
4. The expressed need to have page level navigation once again I think that
points us back to a DTB.
5. The production time to DAISY and to HTML in this instance are equivalent.

In my opinion DAISY is a much more flexible format when it comes to meeting
the needs of a lot of users, but then we all have our opinions.

Ron Stewart

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of John Foliot
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:18 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Html from a .pdf file, what is the best way?

Ron Stewart wrote:
>
> I would recommend DAISY as the idea format, and HTML as the second
> best.
> DAISY would provide for full navigable and better search ability than
> HTML.

I would have to disagree. DAISY is great if you have a DAISY player, but
for sighted folks like myself, I would much rather have an HTML document
over PDF, and either of those over DAISY (as I have no local means of
consuming it).

I am concerned when single-user-type solutions are proposed that exclude
other types of user, regardless of ability or disability.

If you are going to put in the effort to make this document accessible, go
for the bigger win (with HTML) rather than a limited win. (Depending on
how the document originated, you *might* be able to convert it to HTML
3.2, which could then be cleaned up to be more 'current' -
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_onlinetools.html)

Just my $0.02 worth

JF



>
> Ron Stewart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Birkir
> Gunnarsson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:03 AM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> Subject: [WebAIM] Html from a .pdf file, what is the best way?
>
> Hey gang
>
> I apologize if this question is borderline topic.
> There is a big government report being published in a couple of weeks
> in my
> home country, over 2000 pages, but one which will interest a lot of
> people.
> I was contacted this morning and asked what would be the best way to
> make
> its contents accessible to our blind/VI users.
> They have it as plain text and as a series of .pdf files.
> I believe a .pdf file of this size (each of them over 150 pges) may
> cause
> problems with Adobe reader accessibility, not unless the buffer is set
> to 30
> pages or less (please correct me if I am wrong here).
> Also, if there is a link on page 2 in that document that refers to
> page,
> say, 120, what happens with the Adobe reader in this case,. Assume the
> reader clicks on the link, will the reader load page 120 and the
> followign
> 30 pages into a buffer?
> I am just not sure if .pdf is a good format, I am not sure if the .txt
> format is good either, since it does not allow for any textlinks and it
> is
> an awfully large document.
> But, assuming I get to the person with the source document, how hard is
> it
> to export it to a marked up html (headings etc)?
> I would think that be ideal format for a very lrge document in many
> sections, for a blind user.
> If anyone has an opinion on this it would be most appreciated.
> Thanks
> -Birkir
>
>
>