WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: [WebAI OTM

for

From: Ron Stewart
Date: Aug 10, 2011 2:33AM

No sorry

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of D Hubbard
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:23 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] [WebAI OTM

Ron,

I've seen your name a few times and have wanted to ask you if you attended
Overbrook? Just curious.

Thanks,

-Diane Hubbard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Stewart" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF/A accessibility


>I think at this point that we may be talking past each other. Please put
>my
> comments in the context of an individual with a print related disability
> using PDF content in a modern educational environment.
>
> If you continue to purport that the current implementation of PDF/UA is
> satisfactory from the position of persons with print related disabilities
> then I think you are in fact being disingenuous. You admitted there were
> shortcomings in our conversation at ATIA Chicago, but now you are saying
> that that is not the case?
>
> Yes I am talking about content reading order, what other reading order is
> relevant to the effective consumption of PDF based content. This painting
> the page analogy that you and others continue to use does nothing to
> resolve
> the fundament issues related to effective consumption of complex PDF based
> content. Secondly the issue of maintenance of proper document pagination
> is
> ignored in your response. For those of us who actually prepare and
> deliver
> fully accessible content these are not trivial issues, and to maintain
> that
> they are is problematic as this conversation moves forward.
>
> Ron Stewart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Duff Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:17 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF/A accessibility
>
> On Aug 9, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Ron Stewart wrote:
>
>> My apologies, but to purport a standard to be accessible when basic
>> elements of accessibility are not present is to be disingenuous.
>
> Before you go to "disingenuous" (that's fightin' words, sir) I think it
> would be best if we agreed on what we're talking about first, no?
>
>> I think I have
>> presented the issues clearly, what about reading order in PDF
>> documents
>
> What about reading order? PDF/UA specifies that the content of conforming
> documents shall be tagged in correct logical reading order. It also
> specifies that conforming PDF viewers shall be able to make use of that
> logical structure.
>
> If you are referring to content reading order (ie the order of objects in
> the content stream), that has to do with "painting" text, graphics, etc.
> on
> the page, and is not related to accessibility (which is why PDF/UA ignores
> the subject). "Reading order" in this context refers to the order in
> which
> the computer processes the file... not the end-user.
>
> Back when I worked at Appligent Document Solutions, I wrote an article in
> an
> attempt to describe this issue in detail.
>
> http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf-eachpdfpageisapainting
>
> Yes... there's lots of software today that knows nothing of PDF tags and
> instead delivers text to the end-user in content reading order. Such
> software cannot conform to PDF/UA.
>
> Could you please clarify your concerns regarding PDF reading order in
> light
> of the above facts?
>
>> and
>> the presentation of proper pagination is not understood.
>
> PDF/UA requires that conforming software be able to read the PageLabels
> tree
> in order to establish the current logical page and thus to facilitate
> navigation based on that logical pagination. What is "not understood"?
>
>> I think I have been very clear, what is it that you do not understand
>> about these accessibility requirements?
>
> See above.
>
> Duff.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Duff
>> Johnson
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:36 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF/A accessibility
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Ron Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> Duff, actually this is not true as you and I have discussed previously!
>>
>> Um... what isn't true?
>>
>>> There are some shortcomings in regards to accessibility in PDF/UA as
>>> it is currently structured.
>>
>> Ok, maybe (I'd like to hear more about that)... but the question was
>> about PDF/A, not PDF/UA....
>>
>>> Those are retention of reading order and pagination which are
>>> necessary components for producing accessible PDF documents.
>>
>> I guess I'm not clear on what you mean. Could you please explain further?
>>
>>> I
>>> find it to be continually problematic that the spokespeople for PDF
>>> accessibility to continue to ignore these inherent flaws in what is
>>> purported to be an "accessible" implementation.
>>
>> I look forward to learning what - in particular - you find so
>> problematic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Duff Johnson
>>
>> US Committee for ISO/DIS 14289 (PDF/UA), Chair
>>
>> p +1.617.283.4226
>> e <EMAIL REMOVED>
>> t http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
>> w http://www.duff-johnson.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Duff
>>> Johnson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:09 PM
>>> To: WebAIM Discussion List
>>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF/A accessibility
>>>
>>> Jon,
>>>
>>>> Does anyone know if there are any particular accessibility
>>>> limitations to PDF/A documents compared with standard PDF documents
>>>
>>> There are none... unless you are relying on JavaScript to enhance
>>> accessibility in a PDF form, for example. (PDF/A prohibits JavaScript).
>>>
>>>> , and/or if there are
>>>> any special steps that should be taken to ensure PDF/A documents are
>>>> accessible?
>>>
>>> There are no "special" steps other than those steps required to make
>>> any PDF accessible (tagging). That said, a good workflow for
>>> accessible PDF/A documents would start with ensuring that you can
>>> readily convert the PDF to PDF/A before investing significant
>>> time/effort
>> into tagging.
>>>
>>>> The specific situation we're facing is converting fairly simple Word
>>>> docs (no images, no tables, no multiple columns) to PDF/A, but any
>>>> experience anyone has with this would be very helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Ensure the files are properly structured prior to conversion (ie,
>>> focus on accessibility in the source document)
>>>
>>> 2) Convert to PDF using software that preserves that structure,
>>> converting it into tags in the PDF. Both Adobe Acrobat's "PDFMaker"
>>> plugin for Word
>>> (Windows) and Microsoft Office itself can do this.
>>>
>>> 3) Validate the tags, etc. per normal.
>>>
>>> 4) Convert to PDF/A once the file is otherwise finalized.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Duff Johnson
>>>
>>> US Committee for ISO/DIS 14289 (PDF/UA), Chair
>>>
>>> p +1.617.283.4226
>>> e <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>> t http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
>>> w http://www.duff-johnson.com
>>>
>>>