WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PDF Accessibility

for

From: Nancy Johnson
Date: Jul 25, 2011 6:27AM

A year ago, our team was developing a dynamic pdf form product, I
believe using Flex at that time, learned that these forms could not be
tagged and made screen reader accessible.

I was using LifeCycle Designer and working with someone from Adobe,
even if I tried to tag them correctly using the product, it didn't
work.

Is this still correct? or has that changed.

Thanks,

Nancy

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:50 AM, McKeithan, Thomas < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> 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
>