WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PPT to clean HTML


From: michael.brockington
Date: Dec 16, 2004 6:06AM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jkorpela [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: 16 December 2004 10:47
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PPT to clean HTML

> HTML can be much less accessible than other
> formats, and in this case, the _real_ format would be an
> image format, not HTML

The post by lists18 [ <EMAIL REMOVED> ] stated that the process
created BOTH text and image - I have no direct experience, so cannot refute
either that assertion, or your assertion that it does not, however the
_intention_ was to produce both.
Can anyone else shed some light on this?

> > NB: WCAG 11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and
> > appropriate for a task
> That's one of the most foolish clauses in WCAG. For
> accessibility, you should simply use the technology that
> promotes it best. If it happens to be defined by W3C, so be it.

I think that it is probably one of the worst expressed recommendations, but
the general point is quite correct. A Web browser, by defenition, is most
suited to displaying Web documents, ie HTML. PPT is not HTML therefore it
should only be used as an extension to information available via 'safe'
I cannot install the powerpoint viewer onto my 68k Macintosh at home - no
viewer available.
I cannot install the powerpoint viewer onto my Palm Pilot - no viewer
available for that version.
I cannot install the powerpoint viewer onto my corporate desktop - locked
down by policy.
I have no desire to install MS technology onto my development machine just to
view the content of one site.

If we are talking about internal usage by a captive audience then there is
probably no advantage in changing the format, but I don't recall that being
the case here.

> JPEG isn't a W3C technology. Neither is GIF.
They are both De-Facto standards. The more appropriate SVG is not as well
supported, but that is an entirely different discussion, which is irrelevant
to the general point of whether HTML+Image is more accessible to everyone
than PPT.
Given the likelihood of degradation in the conversion process I would
advocate that the original PPT file be provided as an alternate link for
those that can handle it.

> If the presentation contains diagrams, the appropriate method
> is to present them as GIF images (perhaps with SVG versions
> presented as
> alternatives) embedded into HTML documents and with textual
> presentations of their essential content in a suitable way -
> which would often mean that a separate presentation needs to
> be written by someone.

So you've changed your mind then? How does the above paragraph differ from
what was proposed (apart from the trivial change from JPEG to GIF)?

> But it would be absurd to present _all_ the content, even the
> texts, as images, and call this a massive improvement in
> accessibility.

Any improvement on something that is completely inaccessible to many has to
be classed as a significant improvement.
In every environment I have ever worked in, it has been easier to seperatly
get the resources for two upgrades than for a single double-size upgrade. In
other words if the 'perfect solution' is too expensive, then these documents
will never get translated at all. Having 'improved' them once, it will be
much easier to get them improved again

PS Good to hear from you again Jukka, things have been rather too quiet on
this list for a while.


This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting