WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PowerPoint Accessibility

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Dec 12, 2013 10:13PM

Jon,

>I¹m not exactly sure why it wouldn¹t be appropriate for this list. Many
other people have asked whether such and such a software is accessible and
what alternatives there are (see the accessible forms discussion from a
few days ago for an example).

If we read 508 word for word for this applicable standard: 1194.21.(m) When
a web page requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present
on the client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a
link to a plug-in or applet that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l).

I have heard some say we included a link to Microsoft's/Adobe's viewers,
and we are done. HHS' Web Standard kind of indicates this:
http://webstandards.hhs.gov/standards/15

This is really a policy question. The only two people for an agency that
can, or rather should be, make policy decisions is the Agency Section 508
Official or the 508 Coordinator. The Coordinator for the agency I work for,
takes the Web Standard linked above, and interprets it as such:

- If the PowerPoint file is going on an external facing site: 1- The MS PPT
Viewer must be linked to. 2- Must meet our PPT checklist. 3- The PPT must
also be available in HTML or PDF, with an emphasis on HTML. 4- regardless
of what format you meet #3 with, it must meet the checklist of that file
type.
- If the PowerPoint file is going on the intranet only, it must meet the
PPT checklist. Serving it in another format is recommended, but not
required. This is because we know for a fact that all network-connected
computers have the full Office suite.

>I¹m trying to determine whether I should continue to advise someone to
continue to also create an accessible alternative every time they include
a PowerPoint. If there is an accessible plugin that agencies should or can
use, this would eliminate a lot of extra work.

You should really ask the Section 508 Coordinator for their approach to
this. One thing my office is now asking people, when they come to us with
PDFs is "why are you making a PDF out of this? Couldn't it work fine as a
HTML doc?" We may adopt this mindset for PPTs, thus changing the policy
interpretation above. This initiative was started by the 508 Coordinator
with blessing from the 508 Official. If I thought of it, I would had to run
it by these people first.

If this group came up with a fine free viewer that is accessible, my steps
would be: 1- check it meets our standards. 2- pass to Coordinator for
consideration. 3- pass to security for testing. 4- pass to web team to make
sure it doesn't blow up anything. 5- pass to business ops people to check
that we won't violate any weird [enterprise] agreements. 6- spread the word
to our web community.


--
Ryan E. Benson


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Jonathan Metz
< <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> Thank you for your response. I¹m not sure you follow my question.
>
> >"Remember 508 is not only for "people who use screen readers.²"
>
> To clarify, I was referring to an older article that WebAim¹s name was on
> regarding posting PPTs to the web. You can read that article here, though
> I seem to remember reading on WebAim¹s site similar statements that the
> PPT Viewer was not good for screen reader users:
> http://wac.osu.edu/webaim/pptaxs.htm
>
> Besides, I¹m not sure that matters, really. The fact that it *also*
> includes people with screen readers probably intends for software to be
> accessible to them too.
>
> >"Recognizing that the viewer is not compliant and what else should be done
> >is not appropriate for this list."
>
> I¹m not exactly sure why it wouldn¹t be appropriate for this list. Many
> other people have asked whether such and such a software is accessible and
> what alternatives there are (see the accessible forms discussion from a
> few days ago for an example).
>
> >"Only the agency Section 508 Coordinator
> >can/should make this [policy] decision."
>
> I¹m trying to determine whether I should continue to advise someone to
> continue to also create an accessible alternative every time they include
> a PowerPoint. If there is an accessible plugin that agencies should or can
> use, this would eliminate a lot of extra work.
>
>
> Thanks again for responding.
>
> Jon
>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Ryan E. Benson
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Jonathan Metz
> >< <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> I have seen a lot of US government agencies posting PowerPoints as stand
> >> alone documents. I¹ve always been under the impression that PowerPoints
> >> were by and large largely inaccessible unless a user has a copy of
> >> PowerPoint available (and even then it¹s pretty inaccessible). An old
> >> article on WebAim has said that the PowerPoint Viewer is useless to
> >>screen
> >> reader users. Since MS developed it in 2011, I¹m not sure that this has
> >> changed at all.
> >>
> >> Since Section 508 requires the inclusion of a link to an accessible
> >>plugin
> >> to access the powerpoint, technically does including a PowerPoint
> >>require
> >> the use of an extra more accessible alternative to compensate for the
> >>lack
> >> of an accessible plugin? If not, what should agencies include as an
> >> accessible plugin?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback,
> >>
> >> Jon Metz
> >> > >> > >> > >>
> >> >> >>
> > > >