WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PDF Accessibility

for

From: McKeithan, Thomas
Date: Jul 25, 2011 5:51AM


I think that you need to conduct a CBO Analysis to make this determination coupled with determining what's easier for users to gravitate too.

Respectfully,
Thomas Lee McKeithan II
Accessibility Program Manager
National Industries for the Blind
1310 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703)310-0586 Direct
(202)276-6437 Cell
<EMAIL REMOVED>


"Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."





-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of <EMAIL REMOVED>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:51 AM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility


Thanks Bevin for the detailed analysis.

I understand that both these tools have more or less the same
functionality - CommonLook has an edge when it comes to volume, forms,
and tables. But with regards to cost I am not sure if we would greater
ROI with CommonLook than Adobe. With CommonLook - high Cost, less
efforts; Adobe - low cost, more efforts. Also, manual testing is
required in both tools. So, would Adobe be effective from both solution
& cost perspective when we have a set of PDFs with composition 50% Text,
25% Tables, and 25% Forms?

Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead
Content & Design Services @ Cognizant Technology Solutions
Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Bevi Chagnon
| PubCom
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:50 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility

From my experience, I say "it depends."

The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as MS
Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the least
amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this scenario, you
don't even need CommonLook.

But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix someone
else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy, especially for
tables
and forms.

Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is
iffy
at best:

1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
can
any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to items
such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items which
partly
meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the right tags
you've
missed the point of accessibility.
Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything you
need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags that
are
created.

2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
look at
the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or
decorative
frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content. Rarely can this
process can not be automated.

My recommendation.
CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
documents
and fix the problems there,
2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.

I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.

- Bevi Chagnon