WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PDF on websites

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Jun 20, 2013 5:25PM

Like Bevi said, Section 508 doesn't mandate what is allowed. However, since
the PDF/doc is being placed on a website 1194.22.m is applicable. This
standard sayss "(m) When a web page requires that an applet, plug-in or
other application be present on the client system to interpret page
content, the page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet that complies
with ยง1194.21(a) through (l)." So you need to supply a link to download
whatever plug-in.

At my [federal] agency, our rule is HTML > PDF > source file > text file.
Now the next question is what filetype we're dealing with.

Word Doc: Preference is in the order above. We rarely serve up straight
Word docs unless they are worksheet-like.
PPT: Well the file needs to be made 508 compliant via our checklist <
http://www.hhs.gov/web/508/accessiblefiles/checklists.html>;, we provide the
free viewer per 1194.22.m. However since the free viewer is not compliant,
our preference order kicks in. Most choose PDF for this.
Excel: Is it a data dump, or does it do something? Data dump, a .csv file
must be included. If it is more complex, the file just needs to be made
compliant.

> someone is insisting that we also have an HTML or Rich Text version of
each of these documents by law.
Usually the decision on how to handle this is made at the agency/dept or
maybe even state level. I am guessing you guys have a coordinator/director
at some level who can make this call. But in regards to RTF, I would serve
up a Word version versus a RTF. There was a thread on this (
http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread=5529).

--
Ryan E. Benson


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> The current Section 508 regulations are pretty weak; they date back to
> 2000.
> We're awaiting the "refresh" that will tighten up and expand coverage,
> remove the gray areas of what's covered and what isn't.
>
> What makes your question difficult is that every agency has come up with
> their own policy. Some versions are good, others aren't. Some are
> out-of-date. Depends upon the agency.
>
> Here's the Access Board's current standards, effective December 21, 2000.
> http://access-board.gov/sec508/standards.htm
>
> Subpart A General, Section 1194.1 Purpose.
> "Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure,
> maintain,
> or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with
> disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is
> comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not
> individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on
> the agency." [next sentence includes the general public]
>
> I think the key words are "have access and use of information and data that
> is comparable."
> If the PDF is truly accessible, then it meets this requirement. Nothing
> more
> needs to be done.
> If the other hand, the PDF wasn't accessible (and therefore not providing
> comparable access and use of the information), then alternate accessible
> versions would be needed.
>
> From a workflow/process viewpoint, it becomes a nightmare to maintain a
> website, file server, or content management system with multiple versions
> of
> a document: one gets updated but the others don't and you now have a data
> mess on your hands.
>
> The ideal is to have one version of your data that is kept up-to-date and
> is
> fully accessible. There's nothing preventing a PDF from meeting that
> requirement.
>
> My two cents...
> -Bevi Chagnon
> - - -
> www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
> Accessibility.
> New Sec. 508 Workshop & EPUBs Tour in 2013 - www.Workshop.Pubcom.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Krack,
> Joseph@DOR
>
> I work for a State agency that is mandated to follow Section 508 and ADA
> regulations and standards regarding websites and documents. A question
> arose
> about posting documents to our websites. Right now we have accessible PDF's
> on the site, but someone is insisting that we also have an HTML or Rich
> Text
> version of each of these documents by law. Does anyone have any familiarity
> with this? If it is required is there a section of either or these acts
> that
> spell this out?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe Krack
>
> > > >