WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Jul 9, 2013 7:28PM

In Acrobat, I can only choose from a few back/foreground colors.

[AWK] Ryan, In Acrobat/Reader you can get any colors you want. We provide a selection, but you can get as many colors as your OS supports if you select the option to use the system colors.
AWK


On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Duff Johnson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Shawn,
>
> You've called out PDF as a format for specific comment. You've made
> several assertions pertaining to technical and practical realities.
>
> While I deeply respect your perspective and the conversation thus far
> not all statements have been accurate, informative or helpful.
>
> This is an important forum, and I want to put the record straight.
>
> A summary of my extended response (see below) is this:
>
> - Shawn's confusing the PDF format itself with software
> implementations thereof. Contra her claim, this is the fundamental
> "misnomer" at hand in the discussion.
>
> - In WCAG 2.0 terms Shawn's conflating "accessibility" with
> "accessibility-supported." They are rightly distinct; collapsing the
> distinction does not serve understanding or drive solutions to improve
> PDF accessibility.
>
> - Such confusion is *naturally* understandable for end-users. Informed
> advocates, however, need to respect these critical distinctions to be
> maximally effective in terms of influencing software development - the
> aforementioned "implementations."
>
> - The work Shawn's doing with TAdER is a superb contribution to
> critical, practical information for any developer working on user
> experience - including those focussed on making electronic documents
> accessible. The project would be more successful if it refrained from
> inaccurate generalizations while making technical claims.
>
> > 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.
>
> First, this statement is equally true for plenty of implementations of
> HTML / CSS / JavaScript technology, various combinations of which
> produce results that defeat today's AT technologies. It's hardly a
> "PDF problem" - calling out PDF specifically in this case is misleading.
>
> That said, if plain HTML can meet TAdER requirements then it's hard to
> understand why PDF/UA doesn't as well since PDF/UA files may be
> readily exported to plain HTML while (key point!) retaining the
> ability to fallback to the real document.
>
> The later point, however, is that you cannot reasonably claim there's
> any misnomer in describing properly-tagged (PDF/UA-1) files as "accessible".
> They are accessible within any reasonable definition that you'd apply
> to WCAG 2.0 conforming HTML.
>
> But that's not my core point, which is that categorical statements
> such as you've offered are actually and notably injurious to the cause
> of promoting development in accessibility technology. You won't win
> new software development efforts by attacking the file-formats themselves.
>
> Look at it this way: Accessible alternatives to PDF files will depend
> in the real-world on re-use of PDF content because it is the only
> available content in many given situations. Lots of stuff is in PDF
> for reasons that just make sense to the players at hand in their
> respective business contexts, and that's the reality with which you need to engage.
>
> Having accepted it one ought (it seems to me) focus on highlighting
> the
> *lack* of technical barriers to full access to PDF, the degree of
> standardization available, the extent of implementation tools from
> PDFlib, iText, Adobe, Microsoft and others. Give developers reasons to
> invest in accessibility tools; do not foreclose on the potential for
> investment by proclaiming that somehow alternatives must be provided!
>
> When tagging or re-use fails a given user for a given reason, why, the
> PDF is the *critical* backup, tedious as it make be, it's still the
> *actual* document.
>
> That's the PDF focus and value-proposition, and it's got nothing to do
> with the ability to adjust kerning for X percent of users who need such.
> Equal access to the *same* content is - or ought to be - the focus here.
> There's no technical barrier to full accessibility (including TAdER
> parameters) to content delivered in PDF, and you do the community a
> disservice when you suggest otherwise.
>
> You would achieve far more, I think, by making statements similar to
> the
> following:
>
> "PDF files can only be considered fully accessible in every possible
> use-case when full TAdER text management is available."
>
> Only when you are using such constructive terms will you will then be
> helping, rather that hurting, the cause of improving access to content
> that exists (fact) in PDF.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is a straw-man. No-one claims this for PDF any more than for HTML.
>
> > Unfortunately, "tagged PDF" started getting called "accessible PDF"
> > --
> that is inaccurate and a harmful misnomer.
>
> Let's be completely clear on this.
>
> PDF that conforms with PDF/UA-1 (ISO 14289-1) is accessible, period.
> Whether it is accessibility-supported for any given need is *another
> matter* - a question for implementers, but assuredly not in question
> with respect to the file format.
>
> If vanilla HTML meets TAdER or TAdER-relevent standards for
> accessibility, then it's fair to say that PDF can qualify, because
> PDF/UA-1 conforming PDF files can be exported to the user's chosen
> HTML implementation. As you rightly point out, forms aren't yet
> supported in VIP Reader. Why is this more worthy of note that X, Y or
> Z failure of FaceBook, or iTunes or whatever to accommodate TAdER preferences?
>
> Do you really want to suggest that PDF is inaccessible now but can
> "become accessible" when (for example (VIP Reader adds the ability to print? C'mon.
>
> Now, anyone can and will concede that it's also possible to simply "tag"
> PDF without doing it well, just as its possible to do a half-ass job
> of ensuring CSS usage is accessible (for example). Tagging is a
> critical but insufficient part of meeting accessibility requirements for PDF content.
> Tell them that, instead of trying to make an (incorrect) grossly
> general claim about the file-format as a whole.
>
> > It perpetuates the lack of awareness, even among accessibility
> specialists, that PDF is actually not accessible to many people with
> print disabilities.
> >
> >> 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; when it is used,
> > there
> must be a more accessible alternative provided in order for the
> information to be available to people with disabilities.
>
> Once upon a time this was true. Today, this claim is inaccurate as
> written. It would be much more useful if it were re-written as follows
> (for
> example):
>
> "While PDF is a vital medium for many situations; when it is used, PDF
> creation, editing or reading software should create or read PDF/UA in
> order to generate or provide appropriate alternative representations
> of the PDF's content in order for that PDF's actual and inherent
> content to be available to the greatest possible number of people with disabilities."
>
> > 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*.
>
> PDF *can* be made accessible, and at this level of generalization,
> it's absurd to highlight PDF in format terms. Plenty of large-scale
> HTML implementations don't meet your preferred specifications for full
> accessibility today but I don't see you calling out HTML per se as
> "inaccessible."
>
> > For more info, please see:
> > * Text Customization for Readability <http://www.tader.info/>;
>
> I commend you for this site, and would unreservedly recommend that
> reader software implementers - regardless of medium - review your
> substantive recommendations for UI controls in readers.
>
> > * 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.)
>
> Well, I've been no less public that you, I guess, with my opinion! ;)
>
> Duff.
> > > list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>