skip to main content
10.1145/3439231.3440607acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdsaiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Implementation of the OOXML standard since its approval until today

Authors Info & Claims
Published:09 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The article argues that file format is determinant for the final accessibility on a digital document. This is illustrated through the OOXML example. In the first section the authors review the evolution of the OOXML specification through its different versions, pointing out deficiencies of the versions currently implemented. In the second section the research analyses which elements of Microsoft Word's interface hinder the creation of accessible documents.

The methodology was (1) a literature review of articles and technical reports related to OOXML and to digital documents accessibility. Afterwards, (2a) a critical review of accessibility requirements and their implementation was carried out through an analysis of the code generated by OOXML by comparing with the code generated by Open Document Format (ODF). Finally, (2b) a critical review on how the authoring tool interface generates OOXML documents was performed.

As a result of the research, it can be stated that strict OOXML is not implemented in practice, and it is the only version which could grant accessibility. Therefore, this format usability and accessibility is jeopardized by the lack of clarity of code and documents predominantly created in the non-strict version.

References

  1. Bhattacharya, J., Ilavarasan, P. V., Gupta, S. (2007), “Open standards and accessibility to information: a critical analysis of OOMXL in India”, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, pp. 151-154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Feilner, M. (2014), “Complex singularity versus openness”, available at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/ document/complex-singularity-versus-openness (accessed 1 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. GSA. (2019), “Create Accessible Documents”, available at https://www.section508.gov/create/documents (accessed 12 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. International Organization for Standardization. (2006), “Information technology — Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) (ISO 26300)”, available at https://www.iso.org/standard/66363.html (accessed 15 November 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Library of Congress. (2017a), “Sustainability of Digital Formats Planning for Library of Congress Collections”, available at https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/ fdd/fdd000397.shtml (accessed 1 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Library of Congress. (2017b), “Sustainability of Digital Formats Planning for Library of Congress Collections”, available at https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/ fdd/fdd000400.shtml (accessed 1 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. National Archives. (2016), “Selecting Sustainable Formats for Electronic Records”, available at https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/sustainable-faq.html (accessed 4 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Macnaghten, E. (2007), “ODF/OOXML technical white paper”, available at http://freesoftwaremagazine. com/articles/odf_ooxml_technical_white_paper/ (accessed 1 June 2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Moreno, L., Martínez, P., González, Y. (2014), “Guia para elaborar Documentación Digital Accesible. Recomentdaciones para Word, PowerPoint y Excel de Microsoft Office 2010”, Tecnologia y Sociedad, Vol. 5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ngo, T. (2006), “Office Open XML Overview [White paper]”, available at http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20Paper.pdf (accessed 1 June 2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ribera, M. (2010). Guia de contingut digital accessible. 1st ed. Lleida: Gómez, J., Coiduras, J. Available at http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/handle/2445/29018 (accessed 1 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. WebAIM. (2016), “Creating Accessible Documents” available at https://webaim.org/techniques/word/ (accessed 12 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. WebAIM. (2018), “Essential Components of Web Accessibility” available at https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/components/ (accessed 12 June 2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. World Wide Web Consortium. (2015), “Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0” available at https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Yami, S., Chappert, H., Mione, A. (2015), “Strategic Relational Sequences: Microsoft's Coopetitive Game in the OOXML Standardization Process”, M@n@gement, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp 330-356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    DSAI '20: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion
    December 2020
    245 pages
    ISBN:9781450389372
    DOI:10.1145/3439231

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 9 June 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate17of23submissions,74%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format