E-mail List Archives
Thread: Microsoft Word question
Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)
From: Dan Miller
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:06AM
Subject: Microsoft Word question
No previous message | Next message →
Hello
I am wondering about accessiblity issues regarding posting a document as an attachment in Microsoft Word format. I realize that for PDF attachments and the like, a link had to be provided in order to be able to download the free reader. How does one bypass this with Word docs? Is it 508 compliant just to post a Word doc as an attachment? Should one include also a plain text version of the document?
Also, are tables created in Word 508 compliant?
Many thanks
Dan
From: Webmaster
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:10AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello!
Have a look at the article number 9 here
http://outer-court.com/tech/top-10-errors-in-web-design.html
brgds A.
Dan Miller wrote:
>> Hello
>> I am wondering about accessiblity issues regarding posting a document as
>> an attachment in Microsoft Word format. I realize that for PDF
>> attachments and the like, a link had to be provided in order to be able
>> to download the free reader. How does one bypass this with Word docs? Is
>> it 508 compliant just to post a Word doc as an attachment? Should one
>> include also a plain text version of the document?
>>
>> Also, are tables created in Word 508 compliant?
>>
>> Many thanks
>> Dan
>>
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:18AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
On 4/20/05, Webmaster < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Have a look at the article number 9 here
>> http://outer-court.com/tech/top-10-errors-in-web-design.html
That applies in teletubbyland, but in the real world you will have
loads of documents that are maintained in Word and automatic
conversion creates useless HTML.
I have no idea about the 508 compliance of word tables, but IMHO the
most usable ideais to link to PDFs and explain that you'd need acrobat
reader to read them.
Offer a way to contact you should the need for a text-only (whatever
that will be) version occur. That way you have done most you can and
offered an alternative way, and this is a practical solution.
Yes, a perfect solution would be to offer the text in standard conform
HTML with all accessibility enhancing attributes and a proper
structure, and given the chance you should try to do that.
-- Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Dan Miller
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:24AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Chris, much appreciated.
Christian Heilmann < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
On 4/20/05, Webmaster wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Have a look at the article number 9 here
> http://outer-court.com/tech/top-10-errors-in-web-design.html
That applies in teletubbyland, but in the real world you will have
loads of documents that are maintained in Word and automatic
conversion creates useless HTML.
I have no idea about the 508 compliance of word tables, but IMHO the
most usable ideais to link to PDFs and explain that you'd need acrobat
reader to read them.
Offer a way to contact you should the need for a text-only (whatever
that will be) version occur. That way you have done most you can and
offered an alternative way, and this is a practical solution.
Yes, a perfect solution would be to offer the text in standard conform
HTML with all accessibility enhancing attributes a nd a proper
structure, and given the chance you should try to do that.
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: ben morrison
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:28AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
Im sure that microsoft used to supply a 'word viewer' application. Not
sure wether this was for PC users only though...
On 4/20/05, Dan Miller < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Hello
>> I am wondering about accessiblity issues regarding posting a document as an
>> attachment in Microsoft Word format. I realize that for PDF attachments and
>> the like, a link had to be provided in order to be able to download the free
>> reader. How does one bypass this with Word docs? Is it 508 compliant just to
>> post a Word doc as an attachment? Should one include also a plain text
>> version of the document?
>>
>> Also, are tables created in Word 508 compliant?
>>
>> Many thanks
>> Dan
From: Webmaster
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:30AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
Maybe on advanced modern computers it works better, but on my 1700 MHz,
256 MB RAM computer, when I occasionally click on the link to a Word or
PDF document, my browser freezes for about 15 - 20 seconds, computer
does not response to any inputs during this time, I can not even close
neither the page nor browser.
I think this is the right solution: "solution would be to offer the
text in standard conform
>> HTML with all accessibility enhancing attributes and a proper
>> structure, and given the chance you should try to do that."
brgds A.
Christian Heilmann wrote:
>> On 4/20/05, Webmaster < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Hello!
>>>>
>>>>Have a look at the article number 9 here
>>>>http://outer-court.com/tech/top-10-errors-in-web-design.html
>
>>
>>
>> That applies in teletubbyland, but in the real world you will have
>> loads of documents that are maintained in Word and automatic
>> conversion creates useless HTML.
>>
>> I have no idea about the 508 compliance of word tables, but IMHO the
>> most usable ideais to link to PDFs and explain that you'd need acrobat
>> reader to read them.
>>
>> Offer a way to contact you should the need for a text-only (whatever
>> that will be) version occur. That way you have done most you can and
>> offered an alternative way, and this is a practical solution.
>>
>> Yes, a perfect solution would be to offer the text in standard conform
>> HTML with all accessibility enhancing attributes and a proper
>> structure, and given the chance you should try to do that.
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:33AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
On 4/20/05, ben morrison < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Im sure that microsoft used to supply a 'word viewer' application. Not
>> sure wether this was for PC users only though...
It's no small download, but you could point people at OpenOffice.org
if they need a free app that will open Word docs (and more besides!).
I mean, who doesn't have Word or a Word-compatible app these days? ;)
Cheers,
Tim
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 9:35AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
>Maybe on advanced modern computers it works better, but on my 1700 MHz,
>> 256 MB RAM computer, when I occasionally click on the link to a Word or
>> PDF document, my browser freezes for about 15 - 20 seconds, computer
>> does not response to any inputs during this time, I can not even close
>> neither the page nor browser.
That happens on this 2GHZ T40 with 1GB RAM aswell, that is why I
download them by right clicking when the page tells me it is a PDF.
These documents _should_ be downloadable documents anyways, and not
crucial web site content.
It is probably a good idea to loop the documents through a script that
sets an x-application header to force download anyways, as you'd lose
the web site navigation if you open word or pdf documents in the
browser.
-- Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 10:09AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
The "Illinois Web Accessibility Wizard for Microsoft Office"
creates web resources that can meet or exceed both Section 508
or WCAG 1.0 Double-A conformance and also conforms to XHTML
1.1 Transitional specification. No need to use any "Office
Plug-in", since the documents are pure HTML and CSS. Viewable
on almost any web browser and operating system.
URL:
http://www.accessiblewizards.uiuc.edu
Jon
---- Original message ----
>>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:33:50 +0100
>>From: Tim Beadle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Microsoft Word question
>>To: ben morrison < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, WebAIM Discussion
List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>On 4/20/05, ben morrison < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>>>> Im sure that microsoft used to supply a 'word viewer'
application. Not
>>>> sure wether this was for PC users only though...
>
>>
>>It's no small download, but you could point people at
OpenOffice.org
>>if they need a free app that will open Word docs (and more
besides!).
>>I mean, who doesn't have Word or a Word-compatible app these
days? ;)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Tim
>>_______________________________________________
>>To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>>Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)
Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 10:17AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
Dan,
I always start out with "what is 508 compliant"? Rather than answer your question directly, which sections of the technical standard applies?
1. MS Word documents can be 508 Compliant. They can be more 'accessible' than the PDF. MS Word viewers exist and are available from Microsoft to address your users that don't own MS Word on the *Windows Operating System*. Other viewers work on other operating systems (e.g., OpenOffice) and can open MS Word format documents. The question is, how will you provide access or address users that don't have access to a reader, converter, or choose not to use MS Word?
Our corporate policy is to always have an alternate version for all documents available; "that alternate format may be an HTML, plain text, or rich text format (RTF) file. For internal sites only, the alternate format may also be one of the native formats used by the Postal Service for its standard suite of office products (i.e., Microsoft Word
From: Webmaster
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 10:33AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
I use OpenOffice to view downloaded Word documents. It works fine. It is
available for Windows and Linux OSs. I use OpenOffice because I hope
that if a downloaded document contains a malicious code or macro it is
less likely to be triggered in the Open Office. Still I try not to open
any documents downloaded from the web unless I must.
I do not see too much work to convert a Word document into the HTML file
even manually. The only problem is to take out the photo from the Word
document. But I did it last time about year ago.
brgds Alex
Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC wrote:
>> Dan,
>>
>> I always start out with "what is 508 compliant"? Rather than answer your
>> question directly, which sections of the technical standard applies?
>>
>> 1. MS Word documents can be 508 Compliant. They *can* be more
>> 'accessible' than the PDF. MS Word viewers exist and are available from
>> Microsoft to address your users that don't own MS Word on the *Windows
>> Operating System*. Other viewers work on other operating systems (e.g.,
>> OpenOffice) and can open MS Word format documents. The question is, how
>> will you provide access or address users that don't have access to a
>> reader, converter, or choose not to use MS Word?
>>
>> Our corporate policy is to always have an alternate version for all
>> documents available; "that alternate format may be an HTML, plain text,
>> or rich text format (RTF) file. For *internal* sites only, the alternate
>> format may also be one of the native formats used by the Postal Service
>> for its standard suite of office products (i.e., Microsoft Word
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 10:40AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
>I use OpenOffice to view downloaded Word documents. It works fine. It is
>> available for Windows and Linux OSs. I use OpenOffice because I hope
>> that if a downloaded document contains a malicious code or macro it is
>> less likely to be triggered in the Open Office. Still I try not to open
>> any documents downloaded from the web unless I must.
>>
>> I do not see too much work to convert a Word document into the HTML file
>> even manually. The only problem is to take out the photo from the Word
>> document. But I did it last time about year ago.
This assumes that you have a really clean and not complex Word
document and is as a very dangerous generalisation.
I have come across some very very bad Word Documents. Like any other
WYSIWYG editor, it makes people "paint with words" rather than
structure content.
From: Michael Moore
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 10:44AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
The University of Illinois has a good conversion tool to create accessible html pages from office documents. It can be found at the following link. http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/software/office/
Mike
Christian Heilmann wrote:
>> Maybe on advanced modern computers it works better, but on my 1700 MHz,
>> 256 MB RAM computer, when I occasionally click on the link to a Word or
>> PDF document, my browser freezes for about 15 - 20 seconds, computer
>> does not response to any inputs during this time, I can not even close
>> neither the page nor browser.
>
>
>
> That happens on this 2GHZ T40 with 1GB RAM aswell, that is why I
> download them by right clicking when the page tells me it is a PDF.
>
> These documents _should_ be downloadable documents anyways, and not
> crucial web site content.
>
> It is probably a good idea to loop the documents through a script that
> sets an x-application header to force download anyways, as you'd lose
> the web site navigation if you open word or pdf documents in the
> browser.
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 10:47AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Christian Heilmann wrote:
>>> > http://outer-court.com/tech/top-10-errors-in-web-design.html
["Top 10 Errors in Web Design", with
item 9 being "PDF, DOC, and Other Non-HTML Formats"]
>> That applies in teletubbyland, but in the real world you will have
>> loads of documents that are maintained in Word and automatic
>> conversion creates useless HTML.
The real world is hostile to many people with disabilities,
and quite often, insult is added to injury by hypocritical actions like
a) issuing declarations on accessibility without trying to actually
change anything (especially if it would cost something),
b) making accessibility statements and showing off WCAG or 508 icons
on pages that cannot be accessed by disabled people (and could
be rather below the average in this respect)
c) telling people to download this or that program, like Adobe
Acrobat Reader or Word Viewer, as if such statements and
associated links would help the least - except silence
someone's conscience
d) giving them "alternate versions", which are usually second-class
versions for second-class citizens
e) throwing away all concerns and complaints and observations
once one can claim conformance to some "accessibility standard".
(Claims to 508 conformance can be true, but that would not make the
page accessible. Claims to WCAG 1.0 conformance are always false,
sometimes consciously false.)
>> I have no idea about the 508 compliance of word tables, but IMHO the
>> most usable ideais to link to PDFs and explain that you'd need acrobat
>> reader to read them.
That would add a factually false statement. I don't need Adobe Acrobat
Reader to read PDF documents.
In general, Word format is less inaccessible that PDF, so if you aren't
going to be accessible, Word is a better format. Making both Word and PDF
available is of course better than either of them alone.
As mentioned in this discussion, any links to Word or PDF documents should
be clearly described as such, using normal text, preferably before the
link. I think in this context, we need to treat a small, widely recognized
icon with an adequate alt text as corresponding to normal text.
>> Offer a way to contact you should the need for a text-only (whatever
>> that will be) version occur. That way you have done most you can and
>> offered an alternative way, and this is a practical solution.
You would have done approximately nothing in the direction of
accessibility. It would be a little more than nothing, but not much.
It's harmless as such, as long as you don't think you've done most you
can, or something useful, or even sufficient.
>> Yes, a perfect solution would be to offer the text in standard conform
>> HTML with all accessibility enhancing attributes and a proper
>> structure, and given the chance you should try to do that.
It's simply the solution. The rest is just talk about explaining why you
haven't solved people's problems.
However, I make reservations with that "accessibility enhancing
attributes". Many attributes purported to be accessibility attributes
actually reduce accessibility (e.g., accesskey and tabindex, in most
cases). HTML tables are tough in accessibility, and extra attributes
might help, but it is unrealistic to expect anyone to type them by hand.
Besides, even with those attributes, tables are a major problem in
accessibility unless they are fairly simple. Authors should focus on
making tables simple and logical, rather than trying to improve the
accessibility of hopelessly confused tables by throwing attributes here
and there.
-- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 11:20AM
Subject: Re: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree with everything you say wholeheartedly and dare you to go to a
client right now and make them do it.
My bad solution is the first step to what is the right thing to to.
Take for example the project I am working on:
A council site with 20000 badly authored web pages and around 4000
documents authored in various states on confusion.
For years bad development and document management has been sold for a
lot of money and we will not make that go away by talking about the
perfect solutions. It is a gradual process and we need to tackle it
one step at a time.
One mistake I did was give that solution with my example in mind, it
might be that we do really have a chance to do the right thing here.
I am working on an article right now "10 reasons why our clients don't
care about accessibility" which encompasses a lot of the things you
mention - including the misbelief that a 508 of WAI compliance makes
your site accessible.
>>>> > > http://outer-court.com/tech/top-10-errors-in-web-design.html
>
>>
>> ["Top 10 Errors in Web Design", with
>> item 9 being "PDF, DOC, and Other Non-HTML Formats"]
>>
>
>>> > That applies in teletubbyland, but in the real world you will have
>>> > loads of documents that are maintained in Word and automatic
>>> > conversion creates useless HTML.
>
>>
>> The real world is hostile to many people with disabilities,
>> and quite often, insult is added to injury by hypocritical actions like
>> a) issuing declarations on accessibility without trying to actually
>> change anything (especially if it would cost something),
It will _always_ cost something. Especially redesigns. This is the
first hurdle when clients ask you to "make something bobby complient"
*sigh*.
>> b) making accessibility statements and showing off WCAG or 508 icons
>> on pages that cannot be accessed by disabled people (and could
>> be rather below the average in this respect)
My favourite there is the button the WAI offers:
<a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AA-Conformance"
title="Explanation of Level Double-A Conformance"><img height="32" width="88"
border="0" src="http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag1AA"
alt="Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"></a>
The alternative text and title is something I really want to listen
to, and the border attribute is also a nice touch.
>> c) telling people to download this or that program, like Adobe
>> Acrobat Reader or Word Viewer, as if such statements and
>> associated links would help the least - except silence
>> someone's conscience
That is just not true. It is a matter of wording. "The following
documents are in PDF format, and you need a tool like Acrobat Reader
to read them" tells a non-webbie user that there might be a problem
with these document and tells those "in the know" that it simply is
PDF we are talking about.
Let's not forget that a good site has to be accessible and usable, and
a lot of documents are better to be downloaded or printed than read
online.
>> d) giving them "alternate versions", which are usually second-class
>> versions for second-class citizens
That is a heritage problem of badly done "text only" or "accessible"
versions. For example I never see a problem following a link to a
"print version" and I do know users of assistive technology who do the
same as the print versions normally are less cluttered.
>> e) throwing away all concerns and complaints and observations
>> once one can claim conformance to some "accessibility standard".
>> (Claims to 508 conformance can be true, but that would not make the
>> page accessible. Claims to WCAG 1.0 conformance are always false,
>> sometimes consciously false.)
100% ACK, the problem is that clients don't want to learn about
accessibility, they want a "standard" to follow. There is none
(probably there can't be any), and THAT is the main issue. Nobody has
a "usable AA" on their web sites, as there isn't any quasi-standard
for usability (there is an ISO one though)
>>> > I have no idea about the 508 compliance of word tables, but IMHO the
>>> > most usable ideais to link to PDFs and explain that you'd need acrobat
>>> > reader to read them.
>
>>
>> That would add a factually false statement. I don't need Adobe Acrobat
>> Reader to read PDF documents.
Yes, you could word it like "you'd need a program to allow you to read
PDF documents, like acrobat reader".
>> In general, Word format is less inaccessible that PDF, so if you aren't
>> going to be accessible, Word is a better format. Making both Word and PDF
>> available is of course better than either of them alone.
That is all a matter of what version and how the document is authored.
I don't believe you can generalise that either word or PDF are more
accessible.
>> As mentioned in this discussion, any links to Word or PDF documents should
>> be clearly described as such, using normal text, preferably before the
>> link. I think in this context, we need to treat a small, widely recognized
>> icon with an adequate alt text as corresponding to normal text.
>>
>
>>> > Offer a way to contact you should the need for a text-only (whatever
>>> > that will be) version occur. That way you have done most you can and
>>> > offered an alternative way, and this is a practical solution.
>
>>
>> You would have done approximately nothing in the direction of
>> accessibility. It would be a little more than nothing, but not much.
>> It's harmless as such, as long as you don't think you've done most you
>> can, or something useful, or even sufficient.
Again think of my example of the council site. The budget is to
redesign the complete web site and the infrastructure. No, they will
not spend another
From: Strange, Lainie
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 12:40PM
Subject: RE: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
Dan -
Actually, I just attended a local accessibility conference this week and a session I attended touched on the accessibility of Word tables. In a nutshell, they aren't ADA accessible. But a gentleman from Washington University: http://www.washington.edu/accessit/index.php
showed us this technique:
He said that in Word, if you set bookmarks where the Column Headings are (and name the bookmarks just like the Heading text) that at least the more recent versions of Jaws did a fairly good job at reading the heading text with the corresponding data within that column. He said this method didn't work well with complex nested tables however. Hope that makes sense.
From: Dan Miller [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:06 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Microsoft Word question
Hello
I am wondering about accessiblity issues regarding posting a document as an attachment in Microsoft Word format. I realize that for PDF attachments and the like, a link had to be provided in order to be able to download the free reader. How does one bypass this with Word docs? Is it 508 compliant just to post a Word doc as an attachment? Should one include also a plain text version of the document?
Also, are tables created in Word 508 compliant?
Many thanks
Dan
From: Glenda
Date: Wed, Apr 20 2005 1:02PM
Subject: RE: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
Would this technique depend upon the version of Word being used?
Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.eaglecom.bc.ca
From: Strange, Lainie
Date: Thu, Apr 21 2005 8:18AM
Subject: RE: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | Next message →
It may, the demo was with the 2003 version.
From: Kevin H. Spruill
Date: Thu, Apr 21 2005 8:39AM
Subject: RE: Microsoft Word question
← Previous message | No next message
The WebAim site has a very good tutorial on making accessible word documents. Look under "Tips and Techniques". One of the best parts that I've found, and constantly drill into students heads during training and awareness sessions is the need to create a properly structured document (using styles and formatting vs. character/font formatting). You'd be amazed... then again maybe not, at the number of content developers who don't know how to properly use word.
From my experience... when dealing with clients or vendors - since I'm working with and/or for the Federal govt., compliance with Section 508 is understood - and the clients/vendors will take the necessary steps (with a guidance, or a helpful push towards resources such as http://www.section508.gov) to address the issues. When dealing with clients - part of the job as it were is in educating them, whether it's selling them on the ROI inherent in Accessibility/Usability or in just what Accessibility means and entails. That's just the way it is.
___________________________________________
Kevin H. Spruill AWA/CNTR/FAA
FAA Section 508 Technical Support
202.385.8059