WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: RoboHelp Office & Section 508

for

Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)

From: Sarah Brainard
Date: Fri, Oct 24 2003 12:00PM
Subject: RoboHelp Office & Section 508
No previous message | Next message →

I have been asked to help bring some of the other parts of our office up to Section 508. They mostly use an older version of RoboHelp Office (I think the first version, no version number on box) and are very familiar with it. I know that the newer version includes accessibility updates, but I am just wondering if they should switch to GoLive/Dreamweaver and Acrobat since it is used more industry wise or if we should invest in the new RoboHelp since they know that interface already.

I am just wondering if anyone has used the newer RoboHelp Offi

From: julian.rickards@ndm.gov.on.ca
Date: Fri, Oct 24 2003 12:05PM
Subject: RE: RoboHelp Office & Section 508
← Previous message | Next message →

The specifications of PDFs are publicly available so therefore, RoboHelp may
be quite able at producing accessible PDFs. This is good news to hear
because a year ago, the only way to produce an accessible PDF was to use
Word 2000 or higher and Acrobat 5 or higher. The fact that other PDF
producing software is now responding to this need is good news indeed.

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Brainard [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:55 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: RoboHelp Office & Section 508


I have been asked to help bring some of the other parts of our office up to
Section 508. They mostly use an older version of RoboHelp Office (I think
the first version, no version number on box) and are very familiar with it.
I know that the newer version includes accessibility updates, but I am just
wondering if they should switch to GoLive/Dreamweaver and Acrobat since it
is used more industry wise or if we should invest in the new RoboHelp since
they know that interface already.

I am just wondering if anyone has used the newer RoboHelp Office - and how
well the accessibility tools work. I can only "gather" so much from
checking it out online.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Brainard

New Media Developer
Bluemark, LLC


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: Robert B. Yonaitis
Date: Fri, Oct 24 2003 12:05PM
Subject: RE: RoboHelp Office & Section 508
← Previous message | Next message →

We use it for some of our online tutorials and have seen only one problem
with the Section 508 Output for WebHELP and that is that it does not put the
appropriot markup for frames. the noframes sends you to a framed site. This
is an easy fix however. We did report it to them, they are responsive so may
be fixed already...


Regards

_____

From: Sarah Brainard [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:55 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: RoboHelp Office & Section 508


I have been asked to help bring some of the other parts of our office up to
Section 508. They mostly use an older version of RoboHelp Office (I think
the first version, no version number on box) and are very familiar with it.
I know that the newer version includes accessibility updates, but I am just
wondering if they should switch to GoLive/Dreamweaver and Acrobat since it
is used more industry wise or if we should invest in the new RoboHelp since
they know that interface already.

I am just wondering if anyone has used the newer RoboHelp Office - and how

From: Sarah Brainard
Date: Fri, Oct 24 2003 1:24PM
Subject: Re: RoboHelp Office & Section 508
← Previous message | No next message

To follow up on my previous post - I just read that Macromedia is going to buy-out e-Help (PR below)... so, if the accessibility tools were not there before