WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PDF will be legally accessible with the new 508

for

From: ckrugman
Date: Mar 20, 2010 1:33AM

While I have no real problems with PDF files that are created properly using
JAWS 11 I am still not sure whether this is good or bad. I will furnish an
example of a program when I can remember the name of it as I attempted to
use it a couple of years ago as one of my coworkers created documents with
it that caused problems regarding access. One of the trials of working as an
independent contractor working with other independent contractors and not
necessarily dealing with organizations that have large IT budgets.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF will be legally accessible with the new 508


> OK, I'm truly trying to understand. Is this a good thing for you? It is
> still unclear to me. Does the PDF file format as we know it in 2010 now
> contain sufficient means to provide accessible content, to multiple
> Adaptive Technology tools, that it can now be considered acceptable when
> done right? That seems good to me, as some of the richness that PDF *does*
> afford is of value in some circumstances.
>
> We know that there are legacy PDF's out there that will not be accessible,
> and likely a few still being created today that are not as rich as
> Acrobat/Live Design could produce. We can only blame that on history and
> poor training though, right? Is this a problem with "PDF" or of poor
> authoring practice and the early history of PDF? Everything improves over
> time, from Adaptive Technology, to file formats, to good wine.
>
> Interesting note about cheap alternatives that generate pseudo-PDFs that
> lack access features. Are you aware of any examples that I could see? It
> would be interesting to see what if anything they do produce - perhaps we
> should go after those software companies instead - I wonder aloud if ISO
> could modify the once proprietary but now open PDF standard to place a
> stronger insistence on accessibility to be called "PDF" (worth asking,
> no?). If bad software tools (versus a file format) is the culprit, we
> should point that out with proof, and attack the real problem. Most large
> organizations that I know of, the majority will not buy faulty tools if
> they can avoid it, so the market place can be our friend if we are smart
> about it.
>
> Thanks Chuck.
>
> JF
> (Notice: I do not have any vested interest in the Adobe Software company,
> although I do know many people who work there, and those I know are all
> genuine about improving accessibility.)
>
>
>>