![]() There were additional issues but, in my opinion, they would not have as much impact as the ones listed above.Ĭompliance with Accessibility standards for web-based information is required in most countries now. (this presents a major Accessibility issue). MS kept the list structure intact: tags labels and content.ĥb. (this presents a major Accessibility issue).ĥa. MS kept the table structure intact: rows table headers table descriptors and regularity of rows and columns.Ĥb. SP threw out the alternate text and annotations for the images (this presents a major Accessibility issue).Ĥa. MS kept the alternate text and annotations for the images.ģb. SP threw out the tagging structure information (this presents a major Accessibility issue).ģa. ![]() MS kept the tagging structure information (tab order).Ģb. SP threw out the heading styles and changed them to paragraphs (this presents a major Accessibility issue).Ģa. Headings were still headings, with the proper levels. MS kept the original Word "style" information intact for the most part. The following points are the significant differences I noted:ġa. So, I opened both files with a PDF object viewer to see how they were built. Upon closer inspection, I noticed there were several issues in both output files. At first glance they looked very much like the original source file.Ģ. ![]() Both the SP-converted file and the MS-converted file looked presentable. doc test file contains headings, paragraphs (some with indents), lists, tables, boxes, and 2 images.ġ. Microsoft Save to PDF Add-inįor brevity's sake, let's call them SP vs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |