WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: adobe 6.0 accessibility

for

From: Rachel Tanenhaus
Date: Oct 10, 2003 11:22AM

Hello!

While I'm glad that Adobe is taking steps to make PDF files more accessible
to those who are blind or have vision impairments, I think it's worth noting
that, at last check (and things might have changed since I last checked),
even PDFs with accessibility features cannot be read by reading programs
used by those with learning disabilities. Reading software (as opposed to
screen readers such as JAWS) for those with reading disabilities is still
unable to make heads or tails of any PDF files. So even "accessible" PDFs
don't fix things for a huge sub-section of people with print disabilities.

-Rachel

Rachel H. Tanenhaus, MPH
Information Specialist
New England ADA and Accessible IT Center
(800) 949-4232 / (617) 695-0085 (v/tty)
Fax: (617) 482-8099 E-mail: <EMAIL REMOVED>
374 Congress Street, Suite 301, Boston, MA 02210
http://www.newenglandada.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zwack, Melanie" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: RE: adobe 6.0 accessibility


>
> I've been using Acrobat 6.0 Professional version and had worked a lot with
> Acrobat 5.0 (actually Acrobat 5.0.5).
>
> Anything developed correctly in Microsoft Office 2000 (Word, Excel,
> PowerPoint) converts wonderfully and only required the addition of
> alternative text tags for graphic images. Apparently, in the Acrobat 6.0
> Professional overview Adobe states that Microsoft Office 2000, Microsoft
> Office XP, FrameMaker 7.0, InDesign CS, and PageMaker 7.0 have been
> specially developed to work with and convert to accessible PDF format very
> nicely. There are probably some development guidelines for preparing the
> document as there are for Office 2000 which requires styles be implemented
> throughout the document, and other development guidelines.
>
> >From my experience, Quark documents sometimes convert well, and other
times
> doesn't convert that well. In very graphic layouts, I've had funny stuff
> happening where the background graphics overlay the front layer of text,
and
> all kinds of funny stuff. Sometimes, these are fixable, sometimes not.
But,
> I ought to qualify the factor that Quark documents in my department are
> clearly not always developed in a correct styles and structural manner as
is
> suggested in order for documents to convert well to accessible PDF format.
>
> I've had a lot of luck with WordPerfect documents converting very nicely
to
> accessible PDF format.
>
> For Legacy PDFs ( those PDFs where there is no original document format to
> go back to and correct/enhance then reconvert back to PDF format)
sometimes
> work fine and other times don't. If it's too bad, sometimes conversion to
> accessible PDF format may not even be possible. There are some minor work
> arounds such as placing text in figure or shape tags that have been
> implemented on the page by the make accessible (Add tags to document)
> function. In the worst case scenarios either convert to HTML or pull the
> text out back into a software layout program such as Word 2000 and just
> begin the process from scratch if really intent on accessible PDF format
> (ASCII/HTML not an option).
>
> One drawback that I've discovered is that the file size when converted to
> accessible PDF format increases by at least a third in most/many cases
which
> can be problematic especially when the PDF has a larger size to begin
with.
>
> Even in Acrobat 6.0 Professional version I have not been able to manually
> add tags. For some reason, this is not possible. This was a known problem
in
> Acrobat 5.0, and seems to continue to be a problem in Acrobat 6.0
> Professional (at least for me it does) . ******Questions: What experiences
> have any other people had with this? How are people adding tags manually
if
> not already added by the Add Tags to Document (Make Accessible
> function)?*******
>
> I've noticed the Add Tags to Document (Make Accessible function) has
> improved the output in Acrobat 6.0 Professional in comparison to Acrobat
> 5.0. Sometimes, a document that might not have worked in Acrobat 5.0 is
> converting nicely in Acrobat 6.0 Professional to accessible PDF format.
>
> Another factor, is that the interface to clean up the PDF is much nicer
and
> easier to use in Acrobat 6.0 Professional in comparison to Acrobat 5.0.
>
> -- Melanie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Dick [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED> ; <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: Re: adobe 6.0 accessibility
>
>
> Jeb and all.
>
> As a low vision user, I have found PDF the worst product for accessibility
> out there. The problem is simple. The main purpose for PDF is to create
> exact images of printed pages. Well, print never worked for any visually
> impaired people. So here we have an example of brilliant mathematics and
> engineering spent on giving us an electronic version of something that
never
> worked.
>
> Most low vision users, expecially those between 20/80 and 20/200 prefer,
> large print, well spaced output that has been reformatted to fit the
> available screen space. Most word processors do this extremely well. The
> problem with PDF is that it does not enlarge intelligently. You cannot
> control the spacing between lines. It doesn't port well into any
accessible
> visual interface.
>
> Any product that enlarges without word wrapping is not accessible to low
> vision users.
>
> There is a large faculty that is assumed by many if not most in the
> accessiblity business. That is that one size fits all. Audio output is
not
> the best or even the reasonable accommodation for people who can see, but
> not a lot. The fact that PDF, or any format can be ported to screen
readers
> does not make it accessible. Any interface that cannot be enlarge by a
> factor of 4 intelligently, is not really accessible. Also, without user
> control of color, most products are marginal.
>
> Poorly formated PDF is useless. Well formatted PDF is difficult to use,
but
> marginally possible. I usually spend about 10 minutes per page to obtain
a
> good readible document.
>
> This year befor my term as Academic Senate Chair ends I hope to enact a
> complete ban of PDF use on my campus. Next, I will try to extend it to
the
> entire CSU System.
>
> Wish me luck,
>
> Wayne Dick
> Chair Academic Senate
> Professor Computer Engineering and Computer Science
> CSU Long Beach
>
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
>



----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/