WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: PDF on websites + PDF is *not* accessible

for

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Jul 1, 2013 4:13PM

Hi Ryan,

let me just comment on two aspects:

- Shawn's statement was a tad too absolute, and I felt the urge to put that into perspective. I think the following statement is neither true nor justifiable:
While PDF is a useful medium for some situations;
when it is used, there must be a more accessible alternative provided
in order for the information to be available to people with disabilities.
When done right, PDF is as is good as and as accessible as any other content technology.

- it is OK for everybody to prefer some options over other options. But if reasonable options exist and they are not taken advantage of, guess who should take the blame?

And before this gets into a heated debate heading in the wrong direction...:

instead of fighting each other's less favored technology, why don't we simply support each other in improving the accessibility level of technologies that exist anyway, whether some of us like them or not? Let's work on better accessibility in the field of web content, HTML, software, PDF, ... whatever is relevant. If the situation is not good enough (yet) for PDF and PDF tools - let's work on better tools. Are you realizing how much is currently happening in the PDF field as we speak? NVDA moves towards PDF/UA conformance, VIP PDF Reader has been released, pdfGoHTML (while started as a developer and educational tool it will continue to move in a direction that might be quite handy for end users, just hang on...) - all of them free of charge (though donations are gladly accepted by their respective developers, especially for NVDA and VIP PDF-Reader). Tools to aid with creation of well tagged, and thus accessible PDF (complying with the PDF/UA ISO standard), have emerged, like MadeToTag for InDesign, axesPDF for Word, CommonLook Office for Word and PowerPoint, etc. Lots of stuff going on over here.


Olaf


PS: Believe me - some of the stuff going on the HTML / web world s***s so much from my point of view (in accessibility terms as much as in other regards) - but I have to admit that some people like it, use it, enjoy, love it, ... Who am I to tell them not to use that kind of stuff?


On 1 Jul 2013, at 23:46, Ryan E. Benson wrote:

> Olaf,
>
>> - Adobe Reader with at least JAWS and NVDA to provide a very decent user
> experience for people with vision disabilities
> This is what Shawn was getting at. Without my glasses I can probably see 2
> feet ahead. Would I use JAWS/NVDA for my usage? No probably not. I would
> more likely to use ZoomText. ZoomText is so-so with PDFs, and pretty good
> with HTML. So not a solution.
>
>> - free VIP PDF Reader for people with low vision
> Maybe a solution, but new products are kind of hard to get to buy into.
>
>> - free pdfGoHTML for people wishing to to redirect PDF content to their
> default browser and use it as they see fit, including low vision users and
> dyslexic users
> Sorry I know this is your product, but I would label this as not a
> solution. I would say this is a great dev tool, but not something I'd
> market to end users for normal use. Maybe those especially hard or one off
> situations, but then again most of the time when I would be in this
> situation, I would not have the needed admin privileges to install.
>
>> "that PDF is actually not accessible to many people with print
> disabilities" in this form just doesn't hold water.....that PDFs that are
> neither tagged nor prepared with accessibility in mind are not accessible
> to many people with print disabilities
> I disagree with both your tone here and the comment. On bad days, I can
> zoom in the document all I want, even beautifully tagged ones, and my eyes
> cannot make the connection. I need to alter something else, and stuff like
> this happens to people with print disabilities. Maybe Shawn's use of many
> here was a bit much, and maybe tone it back to a "fair number" or
> something, but I would agree on her comment with that change.
>
>> And as a consequence nobody is preparing and exchanging their documents
> in HTML format,
> Given this is a web forum, are we not creating content here, which is then
> a document? Which is then written in HTML?
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Olaf Drümmer < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Shawna,
>>
>> On 1 Jul 2013, at 01:27, Shawn Henry (uiAccess projects) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Background from previous comments is below [1].
>>>
>>> The problem is that PDF is currently *not sufficiently accessible* to
>> many people with low vision, dyslexia, and related conditions and
>> situations that impact reading - because Adobe Reader and other PDF viewers
>> lack sufficient text customization functionality.
>>
>> except you have for example
>> - Adobe Reader with at least JAWS and NVDA to provide a very decent user
>> experience for people with vision disabilities
>> - free VIP PDF Reader for people with low vision
>> - free pdfGoHTML for people wishing to to redirect PDF content to their
>> default browser and use it as they see fit, including low vision users and
>> dyslexic users
>>
>>> Even well tagged PDF that is more accessible to screen reader users is
>> still *not accessible* to many people with other print disabilities.
>> Accessibility is more than screen reader access.
>>
>> absolutely - and that's why the above mentioned tools exist. And more are
>> to come...
>>
>>> Unfortunately, "tagged PDF" started getting called "accessible PDF" --
>> that is inaccurate and a harmful misnomer. It perpetuates the lack of
>> awareness, even among accessibility specialists, that PDF is actually not
>> accessible to many people with print disabilities.
>>
>> Complaining about language other people use, I think you should be more
>>> careful with your own language here - the sentence "that PDF is actually
>>> not accessible to many people with print disabilities" in this form just
>>> doesn't hold water. What you probably wanted to say is that PDFs that are
>>> neither tagged nor prepared with accessibility in mind are not accessible
>>> to many people with print disabilities (though personally I wouldn't limit
>>> this to *print** disabilities, but that's just my view here...)
>>>
>>
>>>> My job is to communicate one person's ideas to another person.
>>>> I want to provide what is both legally required and what is desirable
>> to the users.
>>>
>>> While PDF is a useful medium for some situations;
>>
>> ... except hat the zillions of documents out there will never ever be
>> converted to HTML. More and more of them are being provided in an
>> accessible fashion though.
>>
>>
>>> when it is used, there must be a more accessible alternative provided in
>> order for the information to be available to people with disabilities.
>>
>> To be honest - I consider this statement in this form 100% unacceptable.
>> Wake up! The world has changed.
>>
>>
>>
>> People in this community will have to choose - either ask for something
>> that will never happen (and continue to try to block PDF altogether), or
>> join those who are (more and more successfully) nudging PDF towards a
>> pretty decent degree of accessibility. It should be acknowledged that there
>> even was an ISO standard for accessible PDF (ISO 14289-1) before there was
>> an ISO standard for accessible web content (ISO 40500). ;-)
>>
>>
>> PDF is a format for documents. HTML is not a format for documents. The
>> world is not a disk, and there is content outside of web sites. Maybe rich
>> text format or Word files or OpenOffice files could serve as a carrier for
>> accessible documents, but HTML as of today is not in a position to serve as
>> a document format. And as a consequence nobody is preparing and exchanging
>> their documents in HTML format, but a substantial portion of users is
>> creating, exchanging, sharing, publishing their documents in PDF form. It
>> is not clear to me how this can be denied?
>>
>>
>> And one more thing: PDF itself is an ISO standard (for five years now,
>> actually). Adobe is just one out of many companies dealing in PDF (albeit a
>> very important company). Talk (also) to other PDF developers, not just
>> Adobe, whenever you wish to further the accessibility of PDFs.
>>
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>
>> PS: BTW - personally, I find it easier to make my PDFs accessible than to
>> make the websites accessible that I am responsible for... ;-)
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I've been fairly quiet about this for many years (except to Adobe
>> product managers :) because the accessibility of PDF has improved from
>> years ago, but I'm deeply concerned about the *misconception that PDF is
>> accessible*.
>>>
>>> For more info, please see:
>>> * Text Customization for Readability <http://www.tader.info/>;
>>> * PDF viewers section of Support for Text Customization <
>> http://www.tader.info/support.html#PDFisNOTaccessible>;
>>>
>>> (That is a work in progress and I welcome feedback directly.)
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> ~Shawn Henry
>>> <http://www.uiaccess.com/profile.html>;
>>>
>>> Note: Please be careful in referencing the information on the tader.infowebsite and e-mails from uiAccess.com as from the individual Shawn, not her
>> employer.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Background from previous comments:
>>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> A better, more effective strategy for WebAIM is to get Adobe,
>> Microsoft, and
>>>> the AT manufacturers to create better tools for PDFs (and other
>> documents)
>>>> accessibility software/technologies. A well-made PDF can be accessible
>> and
>>>> can equally match accessible HTML, but today's tools sometimes make it
>>>> difficult and costly to achieve that.
>>>>
>>>> As a communicator, I want better tools so that I can successfully
>>>> communicate with everyone, regardless of whether they have a disability
>> or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> ###
>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>
> > >