WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: questions about accessible pdfs

for

Number of posts in this thread: 28 (In chronological order)

From: Jeff Finlay
Date: Tue, Feb 24 2004 6:44AM
Subject: questions about accessible pdfs
No previous message | Next message →

Hi, we're working with a designer to develop a print user's guide for
our PBS telecast on accessibility in online learning in April. We had
asked her to design an accessible pdf but it appears that one can only
do so on a PC rather than a MAC, which she uses (with Quark). Is this
correct?

We have decided, in the interests of expediency, to have her create a
plain text alternative to the pdf guide. Is there anything important to
know regarding requirements and restrictions for the alternative text
version? The pdf guide has a photos and screen shots of web pages but
other than that is mainly text.

If interested in the telecast, please see
http://www.pbs.org/als/programs/unwe000.htm

Jeff


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


From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, Feb 24 2004 7:07AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

I create accessible PDFs on a regular basis but I am working on a PC. I
can't imagine that OS is a restriction (although maybe Linux hasn't caught
up, yet!) When I started creating accessible PDFs (October 2002), there were
application restrictions - only Word 2000 (and higher) and Adobe products
(InDesign, PageMaker) were capable of creating accessible PDFs, I don't know
if the application restrictions have been resolved. The issue was that the
document structure, headings, alternative text for images, etc, were not
passed to Distiller with any other application - this is not to say that
Word 97 or WordPerfect or other application did not use headings and so on,
it is just that the document structure was not sent to Distiller by any of
the other applications, the information sent was just text size and font so
that it looked like a heading but it was not tagged with the heading tag. In
a sense, it would be like transfering <h1> and getting <p><font
size="xx-large"><b> - the appearance of a heading would be there but the
document structure would be lost.

Personally, my opinion is that if the content is available in HTML,
accessible HTML that is, then the PDF is just another format of the same
information and if necessary, does not need to be made accessible because
accessibility is provided through the web page. In my work, the documents I
produce that must be accessible PDFs are the only form of this information
so they must be made accessible.

If you have accessible web pages, you don't need to go to the trouble of
text pages.

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Tue, Feb 24 2004 11:02AM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

I would recommend using HTML to provide some structure to the "text"
version of the information. Use H1-H6 header markup to indicate major
topics. Include a table of contents with internal links.

For example:
Plain text HTML example, does not use headers or TOC
http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/courses/2004-02-REHAB711NC/examples/sect508-linear/508standards-original.html

Example of same document with headers and TOC (and some simple CSS styling):
http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/courses/2004-02-REHAB711NC/examples/sect508-linear/508standards-redesign-part6.html

Since this is for an educational program, I would be happy to work with you
on making the "text version" accessible in HTML.

Jon


At 08:36 AM 2/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi, we're working with a designer to develop a print user's guide for
>our PBS telecast on accessibility in online learning in April. We had
>asked her to design an accessible pdf but it appears that one can only
>do so on a PC rather than a MAC, which she uses (with Quark). Is this
>correct?
>
>We have decided, in the interests of expediency, to have her create a
>plain text alternative to the pdf guide. Is there anything important to
>know regarding requirements and restrictions for the alternative text
>version? The pdf guide has a photos and screen shots of web pages but
>other than that is mainly text.
>
>If interested in the telecast, please see
>http://www.pbs.org/als/programs/unwe000.htm
>
>Jeff
>
>
>----
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
>visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund



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


From: Duncan Shearer
Date: Wed, Feb 25 2004 1:44AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →


There is a pdf accessibility tool called pdfaloud. It may be useful

www.pdfaloud.com

>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Reply-To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:58:06 -0500
>
>I create accessible PDFs on a regular basis but I am working on a PC. I
>can't imagine that OS is a restriction (although maybe Linux hasn't caught
>up, yet!) When I started creating accessible PDFs (October 2002), there
>were
>application restrictions - only Word 2000 (and higher) and Adobe products
>(InDesign, PageMaker) were capable of creating accessible PDFs, I don't
>know
>if the application restrictions have been resolved. The issue was that the
>document structure, headings, alternative text for images, etc, were not
>passed to Distiller with any other application - this is not to say that
>Word 97 or WordPerfect or other application did not use headings and so on,
>it is just that the document structure was not sent to Distiller by any of
>the other applications, the information sent was just text size and font so
>that it looked like a heading but it was not tagged with the heading tag.
>In
>a sense, it would be like transfering <h1> and getting <p><font
>size="xx-large"><b> - the appearance of a heading would be there but the
>document structure would be lost.
>
>Personally, my opinion is that if the content is available in HTML,
>accessible HTML that is, then the PDF is just another format of the same
>information and if necessary, does not need to be made accessible because
>accessibility is provided through the web page. In my work, the documents I
>produce that must be accessible PDFs are the only form of this information
>so they must be made accessible.
>
>If you have accessible web pages, you don't need to go to the trouble of
>text pages.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Julian Rickards
>Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
>Publications Services Section
>Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
>Phone: (705) 670-5608
>Fax: (705) 670-5690
>
>
> >

From: Joe Clark
Date: Wed, Feb 25 2004 5:43AM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

This discussion is already a major step up from the typical
shibboleth that "PDFs are not accessible!" which I am a bit tired of.

>Hi, we're working with a designer to develop a print user's guide
>for our PBS telecast on accessibility in online learning in April.

There's gonna be a whole show on that?

>We had asked her to design an accessible pdf but it appears that one
>can only do so on a PC rather than a MAC, which she uses (with
>Quark). Is this correct?

No. Acrobat 6 on either platform can adapt a PDF to tagged format.
InDesign and a few other programs can export them natively. Your
designer will have much less trouble if she uses InDesign, but in
principle you can adapt any PDF.

>We have decided, in the interests of expediency, to have her create
>a plain text alternative to the pdf guide.

Don't. If the Quark document has reasonably well-flowed text frames,
it should be a matter of a few minutes to add tags to the document,
run a full accessibility check, and correct the resulting errors
(chiefly language of text and alt texts for images).

--

Joe Clark | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | <http://joeclark.org/access/>;
Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ | <http://joeclark.org/book/>;
Expect criticism if you top-post


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


From: julian.rickards
Date: Wed, Feb 25 2004 7:13AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Joe, are you saying that the tagging can be achieved within Quark or are you
saying that the tagging must be done within Acrobat.

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Feb 25 2004 11:58AM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Joe Clark wrote:

> This discussion is already a major step up from the typical
> shibboleth that "PDFs are not accessible!" which I am a bit tired of.

I thought the common shibboleth was either "we need to use PDF" or
"in Adobe we trust" (including Adobe's marketese about accessibility
enhancements).

PDF is a serious obstacle to the majority, so the finer points of removing
some specific impediments relevant to minorities aren't that essential in
the big picture. Besides, those finer points require not only that authors
invest money and learning time to buy versions of Adobe Acrobat but also
that users have programs that can utilize the new features.

As long as it is common experience that clicking on a link to a PDF page
produces a _long_ wait and then perhaps a white window, perhaps IE crash,
perhaps system crash, and sometimes a display of a document in a rigid
format, I will keep saying "PDFs are not accessible". This probably means
as long as PDF is PDF (Printable Document Format - your may have heard
just the other, official, expansion).

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


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


From: Sachin Pavithran
Date: Fri, Feb 27 2004 3:21PM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Personally in my experience of using PDF's with JAWS even recently, there
were times when it was really frustrating. especially when I didn't know it
was a PDF file that was opening up. I wouldn't know what happened when I
clicked the link and I've ended up closing the whole window. I would rather
not even deal with PDF files, especially because navigating in it is also
confusing and frustrating at times.




******************************************************

Sachin Dev Pavithran
Training and Development Specialist
Center for Persons with Disabilities
6800 Old Main Hill,
Logan, Ut - 84322
U.S.A.

Work Phone : 1-(435)-797 0974

Email : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

Visit Us at http://www.cpd.usu.edu

******************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs


> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Joe Clark wrote:
>
> > This discussion is already a major step up from the typical
> > shibboleth that "PDFs are not accessible!" which I am a bit tired of.
>
> I thought the common shibboleth was either "we need to use PDF" or
> "in Adobe we trust" (including Adobe's marketese about accessibility
> enhancements).
>
> PDF is a serious obstacle to the majority, so the finer points of removing
> some specific impediments relevant to minorities aren't that essential in
> the big picture. Besides, those finer points require not only that authors
> invest money and learning time to buy versions of Adobe Acrobat but also
> that users have programs that can utilize the new features.
>
> As long as it is common experience that clicking on a link to a PDF page
> produces a _long_ wait and then perhaps a white window, perhaps IE crash,
> perhaps system crash, and sometimes a display of a document in a rigid
> format, I will keep saying "PDFs are not accessible". This probably means
> as long as PDF is PDF (Printable Document Format - your may have heard
> just the other, official, expansion).
>
> --
> Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>
>
> ----
> 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/


From: Nancy Swenson
Date: Fri, Feb 27 2004 3:22PM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello,

I am participating in IDL6543 today. I will be back in the office on
Monday and will reply to your e-mail at that time.

Thank you,

Nancy


Nancy Swenson
Instructional Designer
Course Development and Web Services
University of Central Florida
4000 Central Florida Blvd.
Library Rm 107
Orlando, FL 32816-2810
407-823-4270
FAX: 407-823-3511
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


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


From: julian.rickards
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 7:01AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

This is really good to know! Many thanks Sachin.

Probably, inserting a title="PDF Document" in the <a> may help with at least
some of that but a PDF is a PDF and if a PDF is always difficult, the title
won't help with that but at least you are alerted to that.

I am going to make this change to my pages.

Sachin, is it better for you to work with an accessible PDF than an
inaccessible PDF (accessibility defined by the Acrobat Accessibility tool)?

Jules

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Derek Featherstone
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 7:22AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Sachin Pavithran wrote:
> I would rather not even deal with PDF files

Sachin -- a quick question for you -- JAWS works well with Microsoft Word
doesn't it? Now, I know that not everyone has Word, and its far from an
interoperable or open format, however - I found reference to a product from
ScanSoft that takes PDF documents and turns them into Word documents. I'm
pretty sure it was called PDF Converter, and it takes the PDF and ports it
to a Word file.

If you were able to take a PDF and easily or automatically convert it to a
Word document would that be better, relatively speaking, where the authors
have not followed W3C guidelines to make accessible versions? (Again, I know
not everyone has Word or is on a PC, but for those using Assistive Tech like
JAWS, we can assume they are...)

Best regards,
Derek.
--
Derek Featherstone = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)



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


From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 9:14AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:

> Probably, inserting a title="PDF Document" in the <a> may help with at least
> some of that but a PDF is a PDF and if a PDF is always difficult, the title
> won't help with that but at least you are alerted to that.

I don't think that's the optimal approach when linking to PDF document.

After all, the title attribute should specify an advisory title for a
document. I could see the point in title="Introduction to General
Surrealism (in PDF format)" but plain title="PDF Document" is somewhat
questionable.

Explicitly mentioning "(PDF)" or similar (maybe the PDF icon, naturally
with alt="(PDF)") is probably the best way of telling that it's a PDF
document.

Even if a browser supports the title attribute, there is no guarantee that
the user will notice the availability of the information in it.

Technically, an appropriate way to give metainformation about data format
is type="application/pdf" in an <a> element. It's not much used by current
browsers, but at least it's standardized. So it could be used _in addition
to_ explicitly mentioning the type.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


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


From: Jens Meiert
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 9:31AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Probably, inserting a title="PDF Document" in the <a> may help
> > with at least some of that [...]
>
> Explicitly mentioning "(PDF)" or similar (maybe the PDF icon, naturally
> with alt="(PDF)") is probably the best way of telling that it's a PDF
> document. [...]

Well, I've to admit that I didn't watch the entire discussion, but I
remember two interesting articles of Jakob Nielsen [1,2] maybe providing some
(additional) help in this case. -- Personally, I think visually highlighting PDF
documents is the least you should do, and it's of course helpful if there's an
icon or something else.


Best regards,
Jens.


[1] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html
[2] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030728.html


--
Jens Meiert
Interface Architect

http://meiert.com/


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


From: julian.rickards
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 9:41AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

I do use type="application/pdf" and I do have a PDF icon graphic with
appropriate alt text but it is after the link, not before it therefore the
user would have to read past it to "learn" that it is a PDF.

Hmmm, have to think about this one.

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Sarah Horton
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 10:43AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Julian,
How about just including "PDF" in the link text so it is read as part of the link, e.g., <a href="directions.pdf">Directions and map (PDF)</a>? You could include the PDF icon as a way of reinforcing the PDF-ness of the link, but not as the primary way of telling users that the link is a PDF.

Sarah

--- From = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ---

>Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:32:29 -0700
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:30:20 -0500
>Resent-From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Reply-To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>List-Post: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>List-Help: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ?subject=subscribe>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ?subject=unsubscribe>
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

I do use type="application/pdf" and I do have a PDF icon graphic with
appropriate alt text but it is after the link, not before it therefore the
user would have to read past it to "learn" that it is a PDF.

Hmmm, have to think about this one.

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Sachin Pavithran
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 12:12PM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Jules,

I would definitely prefer the accessible version of PDF defined by the
Acrobat accessibility tool rather than the inaccessible version of PDF.
Although it is not the best , it is definitely better than nothing.



******************************************************

Sachin Dev Pavithran
Training and Development Specialist
Center for Persons with Disabilities
6800 Old Main Hill,
Logan, Ut - 84322
U.S.A.

Work Phone : 1-(435)-797 0974

Email : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

Visit Us at http://www.cpd.usu.edu

******************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:49 AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs


> This is really good to know! Many thanks Sachin.
>
> Probably, inserting a title="PDF Document" in the <a> may help with at
least
> some of that but a PDF is a PDF and if a PDF is always difficult, the
title
> won't help with that but at least you are alerted to that.
>
> I am going to make this change to my pages.
>
> Sachin, is it better for you to work with an accessible PDF than an
> inaccessible PDF (accessibility defined by the Acrobat Accessibility
tool)?
>
> Jules
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Julian Rickards
> Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
> Publications Services Section
> Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
> Phone: (705) 670-5608
> Fax: (705) 670-5690
>
>
> >

From: Sachin Pavithran
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 12:17PM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Derek, I'd much rather use a Word document if I did have an option to
convert the PDF file to a word document. And as far as accessibility in
Word is concerned for JAWS users, I think it works great. Then again you
would run into the problem whether the user is running Word or not.

******************************************************

Sachin Dev Pavithran
Training and Development Specialist
Center for Persons with Disabilities
6800 Old Main Hill,
Logan, Ut - 84322
U.S.A.

Work Phone : 1-(435)-797 0974

Email : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

Visit Us at http://www.cpd.usu.edu

******************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Featherstone" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs


> Sachin Pavithran wrote:
> > I would rather not even deal with PDF files
>
> Sachin -- a quick question for you -- JAWS works well with Microsoft Word
> doesn't it? Now, I know that not everyone has Word, and its far from an
> interoperable or open format, however - I found reference to a product
from
> ScanSoft that takes PDF documents and turns them into Word documents. I'm
> pretty sure it was called PDF Converter, and it takes the PDF and ports it
> to a Word file.
>
> If you were able to take a PDF and easily or automatically convert it to a
> Word document would that be better, relatively speaking, where the authors
> have not followed W3C guidelines to make accessible versions? (Again, I
know
> not everyone has Word or is on a PC, but for those using Assistive Tech
like
> JAWS, we can assume they are...)
>
> Best regards,
> Derek.
> --
> Derek Featherstone = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
> Web Accessibility Testing and Services
> http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
>
>
>
> ----
> 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/


From: julian.rickards
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 1:30PM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Actually, I realized that the web page itself states that the documents
below are PDF documents so additional information may not be necessary.
However, that is a good suggestion and I will keep in in mind for other
instances where we post PDF documents.

Jules

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Joe Clark
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 2:12PM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Well, kids, Jukka has spoken.

>>This discussion is already a major step up from the typical
>>shibboleth that "PDFs are not accessible!" which I am a bit tired
>>of.
>
>I thought the common shibboleth was either "we need to use PDF" or
>"in Adobe we trust" (including Adobe's marketese about accessibility
>enhancements).
>
>PDF is a serious obstacle to the majority, so the finer points of
>removing some specific impediments relevant to minorities aren't
>that essential in the big picture. Besides, those finer points
>require not only that authors invest money and learning time to buy
>versions of Adobe Acrobat but also that users have programs that can
>utilize the new features.

Well, the options were:

1. keep PDF an inaccessible format that doesn't work with screen readers
2. upgrade PDF and screen readers

Adobe, Freedom Scientific, GW Micro, and Dolphin chose option 2. Of
course you the user have to upgrade. Upgrades are inevitable online.
You can't complain that PDF was inaccessible and then ignore the fact
that PDFs and screen readers were upgraded *to be* accessible. You
can't critique the manufacturers for shirking their responsibilities
when, later, they took on those responsibilities.

Also, several programs output tagged PDFs automatically (among them
Word 2000, InDesign, PageMaker, and FrameMaker); if you already have
those programs or were going to buy them anyway, the added cost and
learning curve are small to nil. (Word2K is trickiest, since you must
use certain defined styles and add alt texts yourself.)

We are at merely the second version of a general authoring tool that
can produce tagged PDFs. (Acrobat 5 was the first, Acrobat 6 the
second.) Acrobat 6.01 is already significantly better than 6.0,
according to Adobe. (I don't see any detailed release notes for
public consumption, but the abstract to a CSUN paper states that 6.01
has improvements:
<http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2004/proceedings/213.htm>;.) Later tools
will become better still. Remember, it took approximately forever to
prod Adobe and Macromedia into making HTML tools that could produce
valid code. We're still in our infancy here, but many things are
possible already.

>As long as it is common experience that clicking on a link to a PDF
>page produces a _long_ wait and then perhaps a white window, perhaps
>IE crash, perhaps system crash, and sometimes a display of a
>document in a rigid format, I will keep saying "PDFs are not
>accessible."

despite the fact that they are, in fact, accessible when authored
properly. Never mind the facts, in other words.

Talking points:

1. Perhaps now is the time to finally stop using IE for Windows,
especially if it keeps crashing on you.

2. Safari and Firefox on OS X open PDFs right within the browser, and
promptly-- no plug-ins, no special chrome or UI, no nothin'. Some
systems make it ridiculously easy to use PDFs.

Here is how I would reformulate Jukka's objections, in my own words
and with only the tiniest bit of hyperbole:

I already have a browser (a television), with a nice set of
bookmarks (favourite channels programmed into my remote) and a range
of other sites I can visit (all the channels put together). Many of
those channels are already accessible-- I can watch captioning and
even audio description on many programs, and on some stations, I can
watch captions on *all programs*.

Why in the world do I need a new platform (a VCR/DVD player),
with its long, crash-prone new "content" (tapes/discs) that display
documents only in rigid formats (whatever's on the tape or disc is
all I can watch)? Why would I want to make this new platform
accessible?

And even beyond that, why would I want a third platform
(movies), with its long travel times and bug-prone interface
(cellphones going off, people talking through the movie, ads and
trailers ahead of the film, the stench of faux-buttered popcorn)? Why
would I want to make that third platform accessible, as with
captioning and description?

Why can't the entire world standardize on the minimalist
platform I personally like? Why should there be many platforms, and
why in the name of all that is holy should each and every one of
those platforms be accessible? I *just*... *don't*... *get it*.



--

Joe Clark | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | <http://joeclark.org/access/>;
Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ | <http://joeclark.org/book/>;
Expect criticism if you top-post


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

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 2:45PM
Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Joe Clark wrote:

> Well, the options were:
>
> 1. keep PDF an inaccessible format that doesn't work with screen readers
> 2. upgrade PDF and screen readers

Whose options?

The authors' options are
a) use an inaccessible format and keep explaining that it is
accessible, or would be, if, if and if
a) use some reasonably accessible format (that spells HTML),
and if you have spare time, create any set of other alternatives
as well.

You are still postulating as self-evident that PDF is the right format,
and find yourself defending it no matter - telling over 90 % of users to
stop using the browser they use. Quite some accessibility.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


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


From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Mon, Mar 01 2004 4:06PM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

>
> Well, kids, Jukka has spoken.
>

Thus spoke the authority - Joe Clark

>
> 1. keep PDF an inaccessible format that doesn't work with screen readers
> 2. upgrade PDF and screen readers

Well Joe, once *every* user agent and platform provides universal support to
PDFs , well then, yes, I suppose PDFs can be made accessible... sort of.

Joe's a funny guy. Sometimes he'll rail on and on about how you really
should do this that or the other (get him going about Top Posting), and
then, other times, if it doesn't fit within his definition of good or bad,
well, out comes the sarcastic knives.

Hey Joe, perhaps some of us actually consider the current W3C Recommendation
to only use W3C approved technologies as being reasonable: [Priority 2 -
11.1: Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a
task and use the latest versions when supported.] I don't recall PDFs being
a W3C technology, do you? Must be a conspiracy...

Visit Joe's site... he's big into captioning too. He complains though about
the multitude of ways that it's done... I get the impression that if *only*
the big movie studios could get their act together and provide a universal
method of captioning...

Now, I've actually sat in on the Adobe conference (coming to a convention
hall near you), and, well yes, if you do everything your supposed to do
right in your authoring environment, then yes, you can turn out reasonably
decent, 98 times out of 100, accessible "documents". As a matter of fact,
you can even produce 5000 "page" accessible PDFs, although the download time
would be a b*tch. But what I don't get is: if you go to all of that trouble
to produce a master document that can then be converted into an accessible
PDF, why not just make it an HTML document as well? For the PDF document to
be accessible, it needs semantic structure, which means that when authoring
in oh, say, MS Word, you need to use the "styles" built into Word - Heading
1 (= < h1> for example)

>
> Adobe, Freedom Scientific, GW Micro, and Dolphin chose option 2. Of
> course you the user have to upgrade. Upgrades are inevitable online.
> You can't complain that PDF was inaccessible and then ignore the fact
> that PDFs and screen readers were upgraded *to be* accessible. You
> can't critique the manufacturers for shirking their responsibilities
> when, later, they took on those responsibilities.
>
> Also, several programs output tagged PDFs automatically (among them
> Word 2000, InDesign, PageMaker, and FrameMaker); if you already have
> those programs or were going to buy them anyway, the added cost and
> learning curve are small to nil. (Word2K is trickiest, since you must
> use certain defined styles and add alt texts yourself.)

ya, and they output HTML too. Funny eh?

>
> We are at merely the second version of a general authoring tool that
> can produce tagged PDFs.

Authoring tool? Conversion tool perhaps, editing tool - OK, but authoring
tool? I can't claim to be an expert here, but I've never seen a document
authored in Acrobat, only converted from an original file format to PDF.

> Acrobat 5 was the first, Acrobat 6 the
> second.) Acrobat 6.01 is already significantly better than 6.0,
> according to Adobe. (I don't see any detailed release notes for
> public consumption, but the abstract to a CSUN paper states that 6.01
> has improvements:
> <http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2004/proceedings/213.htm>;.) Later tools
> will become better still. Remember, it took approximately forever to
> prod Adobe and Macromedia into making HTML tools that could produce
> valid code. We're still in our infancy here, but many things are
> possible already.

And Dreamweaver MX *still* requires an experienced, knowledgeable user to
achieve any semblance of accessible. Heck, a default Dreamweaver MX
document still lacks a <!DOCTYPE> declaration. But I digress...

>
> I *just*... *don't*... *get it*.

Finally... Joe and I agree on something...


JF



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

From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, Mar 02 2004 6:56AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

> From: John Foliot - WATS.ca

> And Dreamweaver MX *still* requires an experienced,
> knowledgeable user to
> achieve any semblance of accessible.

As a Dreamweaver author and user since DW4 (now using DWMX2004), I agree and
have made it a point to incorporate discussions on accessibility in
virtually every chapter (rather than one single chapter that could be
skipped over). I teach only CSS for styling right from the outset.

> Heck, a default Dreamweaver MX
> document still lacks a <!DOCTYPE> declaration. But I digress...

Wrong (at least with DWMX and DWMX2004, I can't remember DW4). The HTML
default templates include the HTML4.01 transitional Doctype declaration (of
course, anyone can remove it or use unsupported tags) and when you click on
the XHTML option, the template uses the XHTML 1.0 transitional Doctype
declaration. I must admit that I haven't checked to see if there is a typo
or worse in the DTD but it is inserted. Choosing XHTML however, does not
insert the XML line at the top (I don't use it myself which may create a
validation issue) and I can't remember if the XHTML option adds the
additional attribute to the <html> tag. I will have to check that tonight.

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


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


From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, Mar 02 2004 7:12AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

>

From: Cheryl D. Wise
Date: Tue, Mar 02 2004 7:26AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

I'll save Julian the trouble. If you create a new document with the XHTML
box checked in Dreamweaver MX 2004 you get:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
</head>
<body>
</body>
</html>

If you are using MX not MX 2004 you get the XML prolog by default but like
Julian I remove it.

Cheryl D. Wise
Certified Professional Web Developer
MS-MVP-FrontPage
www.wiserways.com
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
713.353.0139 Office

From: Sarah Horton
Date: Tue, Mar 02 2004 7:55AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

Julian, the explanatory text will be missed by someone using the tab key to skim the links or using the link list. It's good practice to make sure links are self-explanatory and contain all the information the user needs to know.

Sarah

--- Forwarded Message from = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ---

>Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 13:22:42 -0700
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:12:27 -0500
>Resent-From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Reply-To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>List-Post: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>List-Help: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ?subject=subscribe>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ?subject=unsubscribe>
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

Actually, I realized that the web page itself states that the documents
below are PDF documents so additional information may not be necessary.
However, that is a good suggestion and I will keep in in mind for other
instances where we post PDF documents.

Jules

---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690


>

From: Joe Clark
Date: Tue, Mar 02 2004 8:12AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

>> Well, kids, Jukka has spoken.
>
>Thus spoke the authority-- Joe Clark

On some topics, I indeed am.

>>1. keep PDF an inaccessible format that doesn't work with screen readers
>>2. upgrade PDF and screen readers
>
>Well Joe, once *every* user agent and platform provides universal
>support to PDFs , well then, yes, I suppose PDFs can be made
>accessible... sort of.

I disagree with any suggestion that the sole format for every
document must be HTML. Other file formats exist for various reasons
that you need not agree with. And all of them need to be made
accessible. It is of course axiomatic that the mere use of HTML
automatically ensures accessibility, is it not?

>Joe's a funny guy.

A laff-riot, actually! You don't know the half of it!

>Sometimes he'll rail on and on about how you really should do this
>that or the other (get him going about Top Posting), and then, other
>times, if it doesn't fit within his definition of good or bad, well,
>out comes the sarcastic knives.

I'm available in only one model.

>Hey Joe, perhaps some of us actually consider the current W3C
>Recommendation to only use W3C approved technologies as being
>reasonable:

Ah, yes, a standards body stating that only its technologies are
kosher. That makes a lot of sense-- to them.

>[Priority 2 - 11.1: Use W3C technologies when they are available and
>appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported.]
>I don't recall PDFs being a W3C technology, do you? Must be a
>conspiracy...

Oh, I know! That's why WAI published actual guidelines for creating
accessible PDFs!

<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG-PDF-TECHS-20010913/Overview.html>;

The conspiracy is *busted*!

>Visit Joe's site... he's big into captioning too. He complains
>though about the multitude of ways that it's done...

Multitude of ways it's *mis*done, shurely?!

> I get the impression that if *only* the big movie studios could get
>their act together and provide a universal method of captioning...

Oh, I want universal methods from more than just the movie studios.
(Another conspiracy *busted*!)

>Now, I've actually sat in on the Adobe conference (coming to a
>convention hall near you), and, well yes, if you do everything your
>supposed to do right in your authoring environment,

(not in any way similar to having to do everything right in your HTML
authoring environment)

>But what I don't get is: if you go to all of that trouble to produce
>a master document that can then be converted into an accessible PDF,
>why not just make it an HTML document as well?

You can.

> For the PDF document to be accessible, it needs semantic structure,

That's not strictly true. Just as you can produce an HTML document
where every bit of text is marked up as <p>, you can do the same in
Acrobat. It's not correct, but it's not necessarily inaccessible.
(Acrobat is somewhat more flexible than HTML in that it has numbered
heading elements plus the generic <h> element, a feature we expect to
see in XHTML 2.0.)

Also, Acrobat 5 and 6 can muddle through some untagged documents with
reasonable success. (There was also an Acrobat 4 plug-in for Windows
with a similar ability.) A tagged PDF, of which I have created many,
gives the highest assurance of accessibility, but it is not per se
necessary.

>Yeah, and they output HTML too. Funny eh?

They output shitty HTML, yes. But of course any HTML is automatically
accessible, right?

>> We are at merely the second version of a general authoring tool
>>that can produce tagged PDFs.
>
>Authoring tool? Conversion tool perhaps, editing tool - OK, but
>authoring tool? I can't claim to be an expert here, but I've never
>seen a document authored in Acrobat, only converted from an
>original file format to PDF.

That still makes it an authoring tool.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/#def-authoring-tool>;

>> Authoring Tool
>> An "authoring tool" is any software that is used to produce
>> content for publishing on the Web. Authoring tools include:
>>
>> + Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content
>> (e.g., WYSIWYG HTML and XML editors);
>> + Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web
>> format (e.g., word processors or desktop publishing
>> packages);
>> + Tools that transform documents into Web formats (e.g.,
>> filters to transform desktop publishing formats to HTML);
>> + Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is
>> intended for use on the Web (e.g., video production and
>> editing suites, SMIL authoring packages);
>> + Tools for site management or site publication, including
>> tools that automatically generate Web sites dynamically from
>> a database, on-the-fly conversion and Web site publishing
>> tools;
>> + Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).

Two people I know from Adobe are on the ATAG Working Group.

>And Dreamweaver MX *still* requires an experienced, knowledgeable
>user to achieve any semblance of accessible. Heck, a default
>Dreamweaver MX document still lacks a <!DOCTYPE> declaration. But I
>digress...

Indeed you do!

Thanks ever so much for trying, John.
--

Joe Clark | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | <http://joeclark.org/access/>;
Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ | <http://joeclark.org/book/>;
Expect criticism if you top-post


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

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Tue, Mar 02 2004 8:46AM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | Next message →

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Joe Clark wrote:

> I disagree with any suggestion that the sole format for every
> document must be HTML.

Joe, I'm afraid you are losing credibility far too much by presenting
strawman arguments. I was careful in formulating the principle of using
HTML as the accessible format and then using whatever alternate formats
you like. On the other hand, there is _far_ less often any use for PDF
format if the HTML document is properly authored.

Please cool down. And remember that here on Earth, PDF-only documents are
one of the most crucial accessibility problems, no matter how you use PDF.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


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


From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, Mar 02 2004 2:29PM
Subject: RE: questions about accessible pdfs
← Previous message | No next message

>