E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 11 (In chronological order)

From: Sue Kot
Date: Sun, May 15 2005 6:58PM
Subject: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
No previous message | Next message →

I am in the process of making our educational site Section 508 compliant and have found that we have over 350 active PDF files present. Some of these files cannot be created into an html format easily (i.e. college course catalog, etc.). For those PDF files where we cannot make an HTML alternative easily, is it safe to just go into Adobe and run the "Make Accessible" option for them? Any insights into similar situations that some of you may have run into with PDF's and site accessibility issues would be helpful! I'd like to get a handle on this and the best route to take in making our site compliant. Thanks in advance!

Sue

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Sun, May 15 2005 9:27PM
Subject: Re: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

On Sun, 15 May 2005, Sue Kot wrote:

> I am in the process of making our educational site Section 508
> compliant and have found that we have over 350 active PDF files present.

PDF isn't a problem; PDF-only is a serious problem, often far more serious
than other accessibility problems combined.

Do not consider PDF as Portable Document Format; consider it as
Print-only Document Format, since this is what it was basically designed
to be, and this is what it basically is.

> Some of these files cannot be created into an html format easily (i.e.
> college course catalog, etc.).

Then they should be created in an HTML format in a difficult manner.

The best solution would be to change the production processes of documents
so that the primary format is either HTML or some more structured format
(e.g., DocBook) from which HTML can easily be generated, along with any
print-only formats.

Did someone tell you that achieving accessibility is always easy, or
that it can be ignored when it isn't?

> For those PDF files where we cannot make
> an HTML alternative easily, is it safe to just go into Adobe and run the
> "Make Accessible" option for them?

Of course not. If it were safe, or a real accessibility option, why would
you bother with the HTML format at all? It's just self-deception if you
think it means accessibility. If you honestly label your site as poorly
accessible, then it would be OK to run the "Make Accessible" option as a
measure of trying to make something a _little_ less inaccessible to some.

> I'd like to get a handle on this and the best
> route to take in making our site compliant.

If you aim at making the site compliant (to 508 or WCAG 1.0 or whatever),
just remember that you are then not aiming at accessibility. What you
would be doing would mostly be in accordance with improving accessibility,
but as a matter of objectives, compliance as a goal mean that you aim
at making _yourself_ (your organization) pass something, instead of trying
to let _disabled people_ make the best of your website.

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

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 8:24AM
Subject: Re: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

If possible try to get to the source documents used to
generate the PDF in the first place and use the accessibility
features of the PDF conversion tools. You will have a much
better chance of getting more accessible PDF from the source
documents than using the make accessible PDF tools. If any of
the source documents are office Word or Powerpoint documents,
you could also create highly accessible HTML versions to
parallel the PDF versions using the Illinois Accessible Web
Publishing Wizard [1]. This would give ALL users an option to
use PDF or HTML versions of the documents. In general the
make accessible tool will have widely varying results on the
accessibility of the pdf, depending on the information in the
PDF document and how much you want to go in and hand edit
accessibility tags in the resulting documents.

Jon

[1] http://www.accessiblewizards.uiuc.edu



---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 20:58:44 -0400
>From: "Sue Kot" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: [WebAIM] PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
>To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> I am in the process of making our educational site
> Section 508 compliant and have found that we
> have over 350 active PDF files present. Some of
> these files cannot be created into an html format
> easily (i.e. college course catalog, etc.). For
> those PDF files where we cannot make an HTML
> alternative easily, is it safe to just go into Adobe
> and run the "Make Accessible" option for them? Any
> insights into similar situations that some of you
> may have run into with PDF's and site accessibility
> issues would be helpful! I'd like to get a handle
> on this and the best route to take in making our
> site compliant. Thanks in advance!
>
> Sue
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)

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

E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 8:50AM
Subject: RE: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

> If possible try to get to the source documents used to
> generate the PDF in the first place and use the accessibility
> features of the PDF conversion tools.

If you have access to the source files, then the better option would likely
be to post the source file (Word, for instance, can be a LOT more 'readable'
than a PDF is for someone using something like JAWS) and then convert to
HTML (and PDF if you still want that option too.)

Granted, a big part of all of this is how well written/semantically
formatted the source documents are. A lot of folks still use MS Word as a
fancy Typewriter, which, in the end, isn't any different than the PDF...just
a document hard-formatted to look nice when printed.

Adobe has done and admirable job convincing everyone that PDF is the be-all
end-all format out there. I believed it myself for a long time. ;o)

-Darrel

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 9:27AM
Subject: RE: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

I think one of the biggest problems with PDF accessibility is
that it is very difficult to know the accessibility level of
any particular document. PDF is very complex and there are so
many authoring options that it difficult to know the level of
accessibility of anything produced without time consuming
testing.

Jon


---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:49:39 -0500
>From: "Austin, Darrel" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: RE: [WebAIM] PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
>To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
>> If possible try to get to the source documents used to
>> generate the PDF in the first place and use the accessibility
>> features of the PDF conversion tools.
>
>If you have access to the source files, then the better
option would likely
>be to post the source file (Word, for instance, can be a LOT
more 'readable'
>than a PDF is for someone using something like JAWS) and then
convert to
>HTML (and PDF if you still want that option too.)
>
>Granted, a big part of all of this is how well
written/semantically
>formatted the source documents are. A lot of folks still use
MS Word as a
>fancy Typewriter, which, in the end, isn't any different than
the PDF...just
>a document hard-formatted to look nice when printed.
>
>Adobe has done and admirable job convincing everyone that PDF
is the be-all
>end-all format out there. I believed it myself for a long
time. ;o)
>
>-Darrel
>_______________________________________________
>To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/
>Address list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)

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

E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/

From: Michael D. Roush
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 12:27PM
Subject: Re: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

> If you aim at making the site compliant (to 508 or WCAG 1.0 or whatever),
> just remember that you are then not aiming at accessibility. What you
> would be doing would mostly be in accordance with improving accessibility,
> but as a matter of objectives, compliance as a goal mean that you aim
> at making _yourself_ (your organization) pass something, instead of trying
> to let _disabled people_ make the best of your website.

This discussion of the use of PDF formats on a website leads me to
something I'm coming up against now. The organization that I work for
wants their web site to be accessible. They also want people to be able
to go to our website and download our application. The original
application is on paper. The electronic document was lost long ago. It
is in the process of being redone in Microsoft Word.

So, at the moment, my only options for posting the employment
application involve scanning the current application and making a
horribly ugly and huge PDF file out of it, and scanning the current
application and making a horribly ugly image file out of it. Neither is
a very elegant solution. Some people would be able to get the
application, some would not.

But, here's my quandry....

Even when I get a nice, pretty Word document and a nice pretty PDF
document to put on the Web, that's still not really accessible, is it?
I mean, anything that is designed "for print" automatically negates the
possibility of some people to be able to fill out the application. Do I
need to develop an html form that could be filled out online in order to
truly make this setup accessible? It strikes me that I would need to
provide some way for people using an online form to go back and access
information later to make changes and such, but that would require some
sort of a login/authentication process, and that goes beyond what is
required for a paper application.

I'm lost as to what to do that doesn't present a big accessibility
problem - even if I had .doc, .pdf, .txt formats and an html form all
available on the site. Right now, frustration tells me that providing
no access to the application to anyone seems to me to be the only
equitable solution.

Suggestions?

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 12:34PM
Subject: Re: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

Michael D. Roush wrote:
> The original
> application is on paper.

How does the organisation currently handle applications by blind or
visually impaired candidates?

> It strikes me that I would need to
> provide some way for people using an online form to go back and access
> information later to make changes and such,

Not necessarily. If a sighted user wants to make amendments, do they
receive back a copy of their original application to make changes?

> Right now, frustration tells me that providing
> no access to the application to anyone seems to me to be the only
> equitable solution.

I'm not a lawyer, but at a stretch (and this depends on answers to the
above two questions): you could provide a link or contact form for users
to request an application form in a different format (of course, the
organisation will need to be equipped to deal with any such requests).

But of course, an online, HTML based application process would be the
most ideal.

--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 1:05PM
Subject: RE: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

> Even when I get a nice, pretty Word document and a nice
> pretty PDF document to put on the Web, that's still not
> really accessible, is it?

Right. It's still pretty much just a paper form.

Unless they take the time to make it an actual PDF form. But, at that point,
you have to ask 'why not just make it a web form?'

> Do I need to develop an html form that
> could be filled out online in order to truly make this setup
> accessible?

That would be nice.

> I'm lost as to what to do that doesn't present a big
> accessibility problem - even if I had .doc, .pdf, .txt
> formats and an html form all available on the site. Right
> now, frustration tells me that providing no access to the
> application to anyone seems to me to be the only equitable solution.

'Equitable' isn't necessarily a good good argument for 'accessible', as it
leads to the baby-with-the-bathwater arguments. Yes, your content should be
made available to all, but don't limit it to all just in the name of
fairness.

The issue is that it's not just a document, but a form that this
organization wants people to fill out. For someone with a physical
impairment, they are likely better off using an accessible electronic form
rather than pencil and paper.

-Darrel

From: Michael D. Roush
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 1:06PM
Subject: Re: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> How does the organisation currently handle applications by blind or
> visually impaired candidates?

Presently, the organization only uses printed paper applications,
distributed either through someone coming in and asking for one or
phoning/faxing/e-mailing to request one be mailed to them. As for the
visually-impaired individual filling out the application.... they would
most certainly have to have assistance from another person in filling
out the paper application. Providing them an 'only option' on the web
where they have to resort back to this on their own is one thing I want
to avoid. I think this is part of why they approached me about putting
the application on the Web in the first place, so that people with
certain disabilities could have an easier time acquiring, filling out,
and submitting applications.

>> It strikes me that I would need to provide some way for people using
>> an online form to go back and access information later to make changes
>> and such,
>
>
> Not necessarily. If a sighted user wants to make amendments, do they
> receive back a copy of their original application to make changes?

The foresightful ones might keep a paper copy of their filled-out
application and submit changes if needed. A paper application makes
that option available to them, but it would not be available to someone
using an online-only form that did not 'remember' their information.
This is a case where the online version does not offer something that
the 'print-only' version offers, and that's a textbook example of
inaccessible design. I'm not even sure that providing a
login/authentication system on the html form is any more than just a
goofy 'hack' that still really doesn't accomplish anything in regards to
making the situation better.

> But of course, an online, HTML based application process would be the
> most ideal.

I thought so too. I thought that providing several document formats
plus an html-forms version would 'cover it', but as I've already said,
it doesn't seem to.

Michael

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Mon, May 16 2005 1:07PM
Subject: RE: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

> I'm lost as to what to do that doesn't present a big
> accessibility problem - even if I had .doc, .pdf, .txt
> formats and an html form all available on the site.

Oh...also, we had this problem ourselves. We had a PDF form that we found
out wasn't accessible to JAWS. The solution (not necessarily ideal) was to
rewrite the form as a simple Word DOC:

1. question 1

2. question 2

Etc,

Which ended up being MUCH more accessible...at least to JAWS. Offering both
simply makes it more accessible to a broader audience.

-Darrel

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Tue, May 17 2005 2:00AM
Subject: Re: PDF files and Section 508 Compliance
← Previous message | No next message

On 5/16/05, Michael D. Roush < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I mean, anything that is designed "for print" automatically negates the
> possibility of some people to be able to fill out the application.

I would have thought that depends on whether you've properly used
styles, sections, headings etc. in Word. I don't think it
*automatically* negates the possibility. YMMV.

An online form would be better for *all users*, however, not just the
ones requiring assistive tech.

Tim