WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PPT to clean HTML


From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Dec 16, 2004 9:42AM

The Accessible Web Publishing Wizard for Microsoft Office
gives you get both Graphic and Text versions of the slides.
The views are crossed linked with each other so users can
easily choose what is the best form of the slide for them.

Example of AWPW output for Powerpoint:

More information at:


---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:37:59 +0200 (EET)
>From: "jkorpela"
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PPT to clean HTML
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List"
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, michael.brockington wrote:
>> > JPEG isn't a W3C technology. Neither is GIF.
>> They are both De-Facto standards.
>Sure. And so is PowerPoint in its own area. You cannot object to
>PowerPoint on the grounds that it is not a W3C technology
>and not apply the same objection to other non-W3C technologies.
>> > 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)?
>The proposed method converted each slide into an image. _All_
the content
>is in images (maybe with alt attributes, but I haven't seen
>What I propose is a normal HTML document where you use normal
>(headers, lists, tables, etc.), using images just for things
that _need_
>to be presented as images.
>> > 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.
>Significant? In what sense?
>If there is a highly inaccessible format and we create
another highly, but
>differently, inaccessible format, then it's of course an
improvement in
>some sense, if there is even a single person who can access
the latter but
>not the former. But it's rather ridiculous as compared with
making the
>document accessible to almost all by presenting it as a
simple HTML
>> 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.
>I don't think doing things stepwise is a good idea for
converting a PPT
>presentation into an accessible format. Each step adds rather
little. The
>total cost is considerable, since two steps wouldn't really
>There's also the hidden cost caused by errors and fixing
them. Each
>conversion has a risk of inadvertantly losing some of the
content or even
>distorting it. And image format isn't really a good starting
point for any
>future conversions. You don't want to convert data from text
to image,
>then try to convert it back to text. In effect you would
start from the
>original again.
>Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248


WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/