WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?

for

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Jun 11, 2013 2:05PM

Duff said:

"So, what are you sayingŠ that accessibility efforts must be directed
towards the crappiest software in common use?²


Sort of. What I¹m saying is that accessibility efforts must not forget
that there are many users not financially/administratively capable of
using anything but the crappiest software in common use.

"Why is it OK to take such precious resources and spend them on supporting
unfortunately-designed, poor-performing, decade-old software instead of
supporting the accessibility mechanism in PDF?²

Because that¹s what people have. Not everyone can run out and buy software
that runs the latest greatest technology out there. Not everyone can go
out and get a new computer every time there is a new technology that is
introduced on the world.


I can easily turn around and ask the same question: Why can¹t developers
adhere to the specifications set forth in these guidelines and make
software that does what it is supposed to do? Why should consumers be
penalized for not wanting to spend oodles of money on upgrades?

"Users who require AT have to acquire AT. Either their AT supports
"accessible PDF," or it does not. Coddling software that's not designed or
fit for purpose has to end at some point.²

That¹s true. But when a user has already spent almost $5000 on a machine
capable of handling that AT, why should they be pressured into spending
more money to handle the latest greatest thing because a bunch of people
want to use the new XYZ technology that slices AND dices. Ensuring
backwards compatibility shouldn¹t be seen as Œcoddling¹. It¹s just
ensuring the same level of access to a wider audience.

"If the message received by software producers is fuzzy because lots of
people have learned to make-do with the PDF viewer equivalent of IE6 to
read modern websites, that's not going to help drive bright, new, cool
software."





That¹s like saying that the reason why some software developers refuse to
make things work correctly is because they¹ve learned since people are
retrofitting things to work the way they should have; so there is no need
to address those issues. The things that help drive bright, new, cool
software are ideas that don't vastly change the way people do things but
presents information in a better way.

Software developers are more inclined to refuse to build things according
to spec because they want to reinvent the wheel and expect everyone else
to jump on board.

Jonathan


On 6/11/13 1:49 PM, "Duff Johnson" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

>> As Duff pointed out, it¹s intended for people who are using something
>>that
>> doesn¹t understand tags. One could argue that this is necessary to
>>conform
>> to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d),
>>.22
>> (d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran¹s Administration (VA) and Health and
>>Human
>> Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
>> 1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).
>
>AT software that can't understand tagged PDF has no access to tables,
>lists, headings, alt. text etc. in PDF files.
>
>It's kind of like asking websites to deliver good results when read using
>a text editor.
>
>> Further, one could argue that this has something to do with WCAG 2.0
>> (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence).
>
>YesŠ 1.3.2 clearly requires tagged PDF. The only (theoretical) exception
>would be a PDF that is SO simple (no images, artifacts, tables, headings,
>lists, languages, links, forms, cross-page content, etc, etc) that tags
>would be literally unnecessary. Kind of equivalent to an HTML page that
>consists of nothing at all besides text inside <P> tags.
>
>> I don¹t think that it¹s an unnecessary step. While it seems logical to
>> think that we¹re pulling out our hair for ³old tech², a perfect example
>> happened to me only a couple years ago. When I tried to make a subway
>>map
>> accessible, John Brandt from jebsweb was nice enough to point out that
>>he
>> wasn¹t able to use the Reading Order to make any sense of it since he
>>was
>> using Preview. I don¹t use Preview, but I think that it still can¹t
>> understand tags. That¹s a pretty common tech that falls under this
>> category.
>
>So, what are you sayingŠ that accessibility efforts must be directed
>towards the crappiest software in common use?
>
>Why is it OK to take such precious resources and spend them on supporting
>unfortunately-designed, poor-performing, decade-old software instead of
>supporting the accessibility mechanism in PDF?
>
>Users who require AT have to acquire AT. Either their AT supports
>"accessible PDF," or it does not. Coddling software that's not designed
>or fit for purpose has to end at some point.
>
>Customers will, as ever, get what they *ask* for. If the message received
>by software producers is fuzzy because lots of people have learned to
>make-do with the PDF viewer equivalent of IE6 to read modern websites,
>that's not going to help drive bright, new, cool software.
>
>Duff.
>>>