E-mail List Archives
Thread: Accessible alternatives to html publications
Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)
From: Varela, Marilyn (DRS)
Date: Fri, Feb 27 2009 9:35AM
Subject: Accessible alternatives to html publications
No previous message | Next message →
Good morning everyone:
We are researching the possibility of replacing our html publications
with interactive PDF or Flash files. Adobe CS4 includes features to
convert InDesign documents to interactive PDF or Flash. Our objective
is that the files be searchable and section 508 compliant. Has anyone
used Adobe CS4 to convert InDesign documents to interactive PDF or
Flash? If so, have you had any issues with search or section 508
compliance?
Your input is appreciated.
Marilyn
Marilyn Varela
Webmaster, Washington State Department of Retirement Systems
360.664.7292 = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Fri, Feb 27 2009 10:20AM
Subject: Re: Accessible alternatives to html publications
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 17:33, Varela, Marilyn (DRS)
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Our objective
> is that the files be searchable and section 508 compliant.
If this is your main objective I would suggest sticking to HTML. Of
course it depends on the nature of your content. Is it primarily
interactive stuff or more document centric?
If the content is primarily read on the web I would prefer HTML. You
reach the widest range of tools and you don't require users to be
equipped with specific software (PDF and flash readers).
Regards,
Peter
From: Gareth Dart
Date: Mon, Mar 02 2009 12:40AM
Subject: Re: Accessible alternatives to html publications
← Previous message | Next message →
I would also concur here. The techniques for making HTML are better
understood than those for PDF/Flash and it's easier to check that you've
achieved compliance (there are a greater number of tools out there for
checking HTML than other documents). This sounds like it might be a
case of K.I.S.S to me.
Cheers,
G
Gareth Dart
Web Developer
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)
95 Promenade, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 1HZ
T 01242 211128 F 01242 211122 W www.hesa.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Krantz
Sent: Friday 27 February 2009 17:18
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible alternatives to html publications
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 17:33, Varela, Marilyn (DRS)
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Our objective
> is that the files be searchable and section 508 compliant.
If this is your main objective I would suggest sticking to HTML. Of
course it depends on the nature of your content. Is it primarily
interactive stuff or more document centric?
If the content is primarily read on the web I would prefer HTML. You
reach the widest range of tools and you don't require users to be
equipped with specific software (PDF and flash readers).
Regards,
Peter
From: Gareth Dart
Date: Mon, Mar 02 2009 1:00AM
Subject: Re: Accessible alternatives to html publications
← Previous message | No next message
By which I mean 'making HTML accessible'. Apologies.
Cheers,
G
Gareth Dart
Web Developer
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)
95 Promenade, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 1HZ
T 01242 211128 F 01242 211122 W www.hesa.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gareth Dart
Sent: Monday 2 March 2009 07:36
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible alternatives to html publications
I would also concur here. The techniques for making HTML are better
understood than those for PDF/Flash and it's easier to check that you've
achieved compliance (there are a greater number of tools out there for
checking HTML than other documents). This sounds like it might be a
case of K.I.S.S to me.
Cheers,
G
Gareth Dart
Web Developer
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)
95 Promenade, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 1HZ
T 01242 211128 F 01242 211122 W www.hesa.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Krantz
Sent: Friday 27 February 2009 17:18
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible alternatives to html publications
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 17:33, Varela, Marilyn (DRS)
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Our objective
> is that the files be searchable and section 508 compliant.
If this is your main objective I would suggest sticking to HTML. Of
course it depends on the nature of your content. Is it primarily
interactive stuff or more document centric?
If the content is primarily read on the web I would prefer HTML. You
reach the widest range of tools and you don't require users to be
equipped with specific software (PDF and flash readers).
Regards,
Peter