(1) OA just means free online access (immediate, permanent).
(2) PDF has its faults (XHTML would be far better), but it's fine for
now. OA self-archiving is at 15% today: what we need urgently is
for that to rise to 100% -- not that the file format should be
optimised, especially by calling for anything that sluggish
self-archivers cannot do easily already, and that might hence
burden them more, rather than less.
Stevan Harnad
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Brian Kelly wrote:
> Hi Les
> I'm with Falk on this one.
> Rather than "we should continue making PDFs open access with all our
> energy" I would argue that we should ensure that papers are made available
> in open formats (such XHTML) wherever possible, and regard PDFs as a tainted
> compromise (although the ISO PDF-A format can be useful as a preservation
> standard).
> As well as the technical and interoperability benefits that open and
> Web-native formats can provide, there is also a need (indeed, legal
> requirement) to address issues such as accessibility. Indeed you touch on
> this in your comment:
>
> ""True Open Access" is a hitherto unidentified specialisation of "Open
> Access". The latter simply requires research outputs to be accessible to
> everyone, without let or hindrance, now or in the future." "Without let or
> hindrance" surely included access to people with disabilities?
>
> The WAI WCAG guidelines state:
>
> 3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars. [Priority
> 2]
> 11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task
> and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]
> 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a
> link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has
> equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the
> inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
>
> This doesn't seem very PDF-friendly.
>
> Note that although WAI compliance is a legal requirement in various contexts
> I (and others) have argued that the WAI model and WCAG guidelines have
> fundamental flaws (and UK legislation, unlike that in other countries,
> provides us with some degree of flexibility - we need to take reasonable
> measures to ensure people with disabilities aren't discriminated against
> unfairly, whereas legislation on other countries mandates WCAG compliance).
> Our most recent papers are:
>
> Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility
> Guidelines
> Sloan, D, Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F and Phipps, L. WWW
> 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland 22-26 May 2006. Conference Proceedings, Special
> Interest Tracks, Posters and Workshops (CD ROM).
> <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2006/>
>
> Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying
> the WCAG in the Real World
> Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F. Proceedings of
> the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility
> (W4A). ISBN: 1-59593-036-1.
> <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/>
>
> Our approach (which, in part, is being addressed in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines)
> argues that WAI should be neutral about technologies, as proprietary formats
> (such as PDF, Flash, MS Word, etc.) can be accessible. However there is
> still a need to ensure that the formats ARE accessible - and it is not clear
> to me how the workflow processes will ensure that PDFs will contain ALT text
> for images and the structural information needed for assistive technologies
> to work correctly.
>
> Surely if institutions need to handcraft PDFs in order to comply with
> accessibility guidelines, it would be a more effective use of resources to
> do this on the open format? Or perhaps I've missed these 'easy to use
> tools' you refer to.
>
> Brian
> --------------------------------
> Brian Kelly
> UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, UK, BA2 7AY
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: +44 1225 383943
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Leslie Carr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 10 December 2006 11:29
> Subject: Re: PLoS business models, global village
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2006, at 08:27, Falk Huettmann wrote:
>
> Am I correct to say that PDFs are not part
> of true OpenAccess (raw data, shared analysis) and should be fully
> abandoned/replaced ASAP ?
> "True Open Access" is a hitherto unidentified
> specialisation of "Open Access". The latter simply requires research outputs
> to be accessible to everyone, without let or hindrance, now or in the
> future.
>
> Perhaps you are suggesting that PDFs are not an optimal information
> exchange vehicle - and many people (data miners) would agree with you.
> However, PDF files are the majority means of dissemination, and while we
> await the Next Great interoperability format (presumably based on XML)
> together with the easy-to-use tools to go with it, we should continue making
> PDFs open access with all our energy.
> --
> Les Carr
>
|