We are busy with improving our PDF files so that it's accessible for everyone, also for people with sight loss. At the moment we are using the following tool to verify if a PDF is accessible.
http://www.access-for-all.ch/en/pdf-lab/pdf-accessibility-checker-pac/downloading-pac.html
We are thinking that this is quite a good tool to verify if the PDF is accessible for people with sight loss, however we were wondering what other options we have to verify if a PDF is valid for people with sight loss.
The problem is that we have to solve the issues that are reported from the tool, like 'Path object not tagged', we were wondering how we should solve this in HTML as we are generating the PDF based on HTML.
Thanks
First off, no automated accessibility tool can substitute for a skilled person who understands the intent and practical implementation of WCAG / 508 standards.
For example, your "Path object not tagged" error is likely referring to a line segment or other vector shape that didn't correctly get tagged as an artifact.
If money is no object, then I recommend CommonLook tools, which are amazing, but very pricey. If you do this kind of work much, then these tools are absolutely worth the money.
Otherwise, I'd recommend using the accessibility checker in Acrobat Pro. Lots of government and enterprise organizations use nothing more than Acrobat Pro in their accessibility programs.
Related
I have started on a web app for the ORG i work for, using notepad++ for html and css and of course php and javascript. I must say that the ORG did not used to have software developers, all software they have is off-the-shelf or oracle forms and am a recent grad.
We got a new hire he has much more experience "he claims", the thing is that he has been criticizing me for using notepad++ for html, he instead suggests using ASP.NET in VS. His argument comes from security risks and better support point of view.
The web app will consist of a website for the visitors to browse, in addition to an intranet for employees to use onsite and globally.
So i am not sure if i am on the right track and he is showing off, or i should be following his advice "he could be our new IT manager".
I thank you very much in advance.
The editor you are using has literally nothing to do with the security of the programmed application. Notepad++ is perfectly fine, even though i would recommend something like Atom, Visual Studio Code or Sublime.
One thing they have as a "security advantage" over Notepad++ is, that it is easier to install plugins that try to check your code and point out possible bugs. Otherwise blaming the Editor for Security issues is nonsense.
I have no experience with ASP.NET, i tried it a few times but never liked it. I think it comes with some authentication solutions out of the box.
HTML and CSS have very little to do with security. JavaScript and especially PHP is what you have to be careful with. I would recommend to use some kind of PHP framework as there are often well tested authentication components included. Frameworks I know of are Symfony and Laravel (which is built on Symfony).
I work for a large company with agents all over the U.S. We want to upgrade our agents to Open Source office suite (Apache Open Office) from the chaotic mismatch of different versions used now. Problem is many of our people are barely computer literate.
I need to build a menu in Html to install the proper version on their systems from a DVD I have downloaded the files onto.
I can code some Html and some java but not a lot. It would help if it were cross browser since some use Macs but most use PCs.
I have researched for days and find many references to no access from the Web bit surely there is a way to do it offline?
Thanks in Advance.
I'm not sure that HTML is really what you want here. HTML is used to create web pages, but it's not a programming language and is not well suited to executing commands or performing tasks. JavaScript is the most common programming language used in web browsers, but you will have problems accessing a user's local file system for security reasons.
The best option I can think of is to give the installers appropriate names based on OS, and include documentation that clearly explains to users what they need to do. HTML may or may not be suitable for the documentation depending on your needs.
I want to thank everyone for their help.
Do to time restraints I believe the fastest solution is to do a simple text document in several forms describing the file choices and links to the files.
This way may not be eloquent but it is efficient.
Thanks for your time.
Due to a new web site and CMS system, I'm dealing with multiple users making content changes to our site. Many of them are trying to copy and paste content from MS Word and other Office products which, as any web developer knows, is a nightmare.
What I'm looking for is a simple offline Word Processor or WYSIWYG editor that I can ask people to use instead of Word in cases where they aren't going to be composing their changes directly on our site.
Basic requirements:
It should be simple to use. I do not need any advanced features. Basically just a word processor that generates valid HTML.
Freeware or open source would be nice
It would be a bonus if it also had a "paste-from-Word" feature
I am not looking for a MS Office replacement as that will never get approved. I need a supplemental editor for our web content editors.
Our environment is mostly Windows Vista/7, though we do have a small base of Mac users as well.
Based on my searches, the most frequent answer I see is NVU, but quite honestly that is too complex for my users since I don't need a whole site editor, file manager, or web publishing software - just the ability to create/edit simple HTML documents.
Yes, I know this technically isn't a programming question, but I'm sure it is relevant to a lot of programmers and web developers.
You can open a WYSIWYG from a local html file. If you don't want to do this through the normal browser, you can do it through an embedded web browser in your application. Check Qt, its a framework that can show web pages (local ones too) using WebKit.
I know this one's been done to death, but most of the onces I've found on SO have been open source. For this particular project I'm willing to spend the money to get the quality, ease of use and support. The less hassle it is to setup and to create new templates the better.
The system I'm building will need to be able to output custom reports including some simple bar charts and graphics. These will all need to be able to output to PDF as well. Again, the less implementation time there is for these reports in regards to PDF conversion, the better.
I've seen PrinceXML (http://princexml.com) and am impressed so far. What I want is at least one other good premium option to compare to.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance
I always recommend wkhtmltopdf. It's Free, but supports just about everything thanks to its webkit roots... up to and including script that alters the HTML.
Here is a commercial one I have worked on. Great support if I say so myself.
Comes with a friendly web services interface so you can use it from most development environments and languages.
Last I heard, Blizzard was one of the few companies to put client-side XSLT into practice (2008). Is this still the case in 2011, or are more people now exploring this technique in production?
It seems that modern browsers (IE9, FF4, Chrome) and client processing power are primed to exploit this standard for tangible savings in server CPU power and bandwidth on large scale properties. Am I missing something?
The negative aspects I'm aware of include
additional rendering time
additional assets required on uncached page load
additional layer of complexity
noticably less developer experience than server-side template techniques
The benefits I perceive include
template composition offloaded on the client
caching of common template fragments offloaded on the client
logical separation of document structure and data
well-documented web standard supported by all modern browsers
Finally, although I know it's impossible to predict the future, I am curious to know opinions on whether or not client-side XSLT's day will come. With interest in HTML5 driving users to upgrade their browsers and developers to explore new techniques, I'm eager to see what develops.
Thanks in advance,
Casey
Edit:
Any insight into how transformed XML is viewed by Google and the ramifications it has on SEO is appreciated too.
I use client-side XSLT on kulesh.info. I haven't found any differences in IE 6–9, Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. XSLT transformation happens very fast. I haven't done any speed measurement, but I don't see any differences comparing to pure HTML version (even on first generation of iPod Touch).
mail.yandex.ru (big mail provider in Russia) is also using XSLT on client-side.
Last I heard, Blizzard was one of the
few companies to put client-side XSLT
into practice (2008). Is this still
the case in 2011, or are more people
now exploring this technique in
production?
Here are some examples:
Jenni Tennison's site is completely XSLT-client-site driven and has been so for years.
This commercial website is totally client-side XSLT driven: http://www.skechers.com/
We already have an implementation of XQuery in the browser: XQIB
Michael Kay has blogged about his attempt to produce XSLT 2.0 in the browser and there would be something working soon.
Some people argue that XSLT isn't designed for "programming in the large" -- for example it lacks any separate compilation capabilities. Let's hope that the coming XSLT 3.0 will change this.
I may be somehow lost in translation, but I guess SEO issues is the main reason, preventing a lot of people of using client-side XSLT.
I'm not aware of search robots, capable of parsing application/xml instead of plain html or even flash.
Still it's a good practice (mail.yandex.ru is a notable example indeed) for highly loaded web-apps to use XSLT partially on the client, because traffic is large and SEO-friendliness isn't necessary.
The problem with the XSLT stuff on the web is there are so many other things out there that can be used in place of it that are easier on the developers. I can never really see XSLT taking hold on the web in the form you are describing, in fact I believe Blizzard actually pulled the client side XSLT translations from their sites when they recently did some redesigns to consolidate their brands.
Trust me though, I wish it would, I wrote a solution for a company I worked for in the past that used XSLT translations for all their front end templating. It didn't use client side translations because this was in 2005, when there was still a large market share of browsers that didn't support client side XSLT. One of the biggest issues we had when working with that system was finding developers that could help work on it. And when you found someone who could work with it they'd butcher a lot of the templating because XSLT development is a different beast than any other templating language out there.
While the benefits of using XSLT are tremendous ( do a google search for symphony, a great cms that utilizes xslt as it's templating system ) I don't see it taking much more hold for front end development.
When making a decision about XSLT usage, it usually comes down to a cost of developer time vs perceived benefit in CPU cycles. For a little customer it almost universally means: XSLT, if it exists, goes on a server side. There is simply not enough benefit in figuring out all the client issues.
If a breakthrough is coming, it will be on the big sites, such as: facebook, or google. On those, the CPU cycles offloaded to a client will make up a significant $$$ figure, enough to justify hiring developer(s), who will iron out the client problems. I would be watching those players to see if a change is going to happen
I made a XML - XSLT website a couple of years ago for a project in school and noticed a bug: Firefox doesn't support disable-output-escaping.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98168