WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PDF on websites

for

From: Krack, Joseph@DOR
Date: Jun 24, 2013 2:04PM

Gabriel,

Thank you for the response.

The PDF's in question are indeed accessible (tested by both machine and
AT using individuals - not to mention being created by me :) ). The
person is basically just trying to pick a fight and while I was pretty
sure of the answer, I really wanted to get more opinions from the
experts in this blog. Prior to responding to the latest email from this
person.

Thanks again!

Joe



-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of McMorland,
Gabriel
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:14 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF on websites

I'm curious about the accessibility of the existing PDFs on your site.
Have you reviewed a sample of them to ensure that they are actually
accessible? Also, what challenges or barriers were found by the person
that wants HTML versions of the PDF content?

This is just a hunch, but have you reviewed a sample of your agency's
PDFs to verify that all data tables are properly tagged and formatted
for screen reader navigation?


-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Krack,
Joseph@DOR
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:34 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF on websites

Thanks Bevi,

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Chagnon |
PubCom
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:01 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF on websites

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out-of-date.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

messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>


messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>