WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Jul 12, 2013 1:01PM

On Jul 12, 2013, at 6:02 AM, "Shawn Henry (uiAccess projects)" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> (Olaf and I had a very congenial, constructive exchange off-list

Olaf is not (only) a bear. ;-)

> First and foremost, I whole-heartedly agree that my text did not accurately distinguish between PDF files and the "PDF format", and this is an important distinction. I have edited the information on http://www.tader.info to reflect this distinction. I will be more careful of this.

Much appreciated!

Some of us in PDF-land are working towards the day when Shawn will say: "No matter what other format you use, you also have to deliver well-tagged PDF in order to ensure your document is accessible to the greatest number of users."

:)

> To clarify here: I am stating only that PDF files are not accessible today because of the lack of text customization functionality in PDF Reader and other viewers. I do not mean to make any statement about the "PDF format itself". (I do not know enough about the technical aspects of the format -- although I do wonder if there may be fundamental issues with the format given the limitations of all viewers, for example, not to reflow PDF files with forms.)

Form fields - in fact, any interactive content - presents additional challenges for tagged-PDF-to-HTML conversion and display engines, which is what we're talking about here. But there are no fundamental reasons why form-fields can't be included in tags-based reflow.

Tell SZB you want to see support for forms in the next release of VIP Reader; tell Adobe you want to see it in the next-generation reflow tool from Adobe for Acrobat/Reader. You know the drill!

> My goal is to encourage Adobe Reader, other PDF viewers, and "user agents" for other technologies/formats (including web browsers for HTML) to provide sufficient text customization functionality that is easy for people to use.

I know it is! Which is why we're having this fun and very public conversation. :)

Adobe doesn't want to hear from *me* again - they already know what I think.

My goal is to maximize accessibility advocates' effectiveness in advocating for their goals with software developers.

> I do not want to banish PDF altogether.

That's good, because it's not within anyone's power to do so.

Allow me to quote, if I may, from the introduction to the forthcoming Matterhorn Protocol:

"PDF is the electronic document format found worldwide in every corner of almost every organization that uses computers. The value of PDF may be stated in terms of the capacity to deliver a stable and trustworthy representation of a document."

> The reason I am emphasizing that PDF files are not currently accessible is that it is not well understood, even among PDF experts and accessibility specialists. My purpose is to educate accessibility advocates and content providers on the current limitations of PDF viewers in order to motivate them to actively encourage improvements in Adobe Reader. (Yes, there are other viewers, but ideally the mainstream one supports accessibility.) If people do not understand there is a problem, they won't know to encourage it to be fixed.

It used to be in the accessibility world that *everyone* hated PDF and Adobe Reader; that almost no-one believed PDF files could be accessible! Are you telling me that this situation has flipped; that people now don't believe there's a problem?

Nah…

> I sincerely apologize that my comments came across to some as not respecting the work to improve PDF accessibility, especially for screen reader users. I do appreciate and acknowledge all that work!

I know you do.

> In fact, that is why I have been quiet about this issue for so long. I've been bugging Adobe accessibility manager Andrew Kirkpatrick, and before him Bob Regan, about it for several years. I said almost nothing publicly until last year because they were making improvements in accessibility.

"Quiet" doesn't influence product development. NOISY does! And more than being individually noisy, getting others to be noisy is much better, and getting big customers to be noisy is the very *best* way.

Product managers are just like everyone else: they fight the fire that's burning highest. You want something? Throw gas on the fire.

Now… Adobe's not been that great at blowing their own horn on this, perhaps because they are afraid of raising expectations. However, it's important to praise their efforts and progress even while demanding more more more.

Adobe has invested heavily in tagged PDF development… inventing it in the first place, producing a first and second generation of tools and *crucially* leading the way with an API that allows AT to get to the tags in the first place.

I know many fine people at Adobe who really care about this issue and work hard to promote accessibility in the company's development priorities. But they need help, and that means vocal support from the community for accessible PDF tools… and a lot less of the broad-brush condemnations of PDF as a format, technology, whatever.

> The issue now is that people are not speaking up enough about users' needs to customize text display. People with low vision, dyslexia, and related conditions that impact reading are a large user group –larger than people who are blind-, we just don't have coordinated advocacy.

I'd say they've got a potent advocate in you!

> I don't know specific statistics on how many people need to customize text, however, these stats provide some insight: An estimated 15–20% of the population has symptoms of dyslexia, and 246 million have low vision (compared to 39 million who are blind) [references at <http://www.tader.info/understanding.html#refstats>;] -- and these numbers are increasing due to age-related impairments. Text customization is not just nice-to-have for a few; it is a requirement for a significant number of people. Please see <http://www.tader.info/baddisplay.html>; for enlightening comments and survey data.

This is why I am *so* enthusiastic about VIP Reader! I encourage anyone to download it, try it, and then, contribute to its future development. Full TAdER support really isn't that far off…

> I have another request, particularly to those ingrained in PDF: Would you consider thinking differently about "documents" and instead think of access to information?
> I agree that PDF is the best format in many cases *for printing specifically-designed information*. However, when you want to provide information that is accessible to most people, perhaps it needs to be offered in another format…

While I take your point I want to ask you to turn the point around.

PDF is not about "printing". It's about the ability to share (exchange) graphically rich information in a completely reliable way, regardless of platform. See the introduction to Matterhorn, quoted above.

There are "documents" - they exist; they are unavoidable.

From tax forms to ordinances to gas bills to advertisements to product packaging to contracts, graphically-rich content that's "frozen" at a specific moment becomes a "document" - an irreducible aspect of communications.

The *real* question is: will you insist that documents be accessible and supported with adequate reading technology, or that somehow "document-ness" has to be avoided?

I vote for insisting documents be accessible. ;)

> Replies on specific points are below, preceded with "SLH".

I have a few more comments preceded by "DJ" but I've otherwise snipped for brevity's sake.

> SLH: Right, I need to distinguish between files and format. Not talking about the format, but about the real world user situation today: *Even PDF files that conform with PDF/UA-1 (ISO 14289-1) are not currently accessible* to some people with low vision, dyslexia, and related conditions that impact reading - because PDF viewers lack sufficient text customization functionality.

DJ: Yes!! Now we're got the wood behind the right arrow!

>> 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? ...
>
> SLH: Yes, exactly! – with the clarification of files, not format: PDF files are inaccessible now, but can become accessible to most people when PDF viewers provide sufficient text customization.
> (which is more than the ability to print <http://www.tader.info/display.html>;)

DJ: We are on the same page. I am delighted to recommend TAdER as *required reading* for software developers interested in accessibility, and I'll promote it as such in my presentation at next month's Technical Conference in Seattle.

SHAMELESS PLUG: Interested in PDF accessibility from a technical standpoint? This August 14-15 in Seattle it's the PDF Association Technical Conference!! More info:

http://www.pdfa.org/event/technical-conference-north-america-2013/

> (side note: I updated the information on VIP PDF-Reader to be more specific about which aspects of text customization it supports and which it does not yet -- and to praise their work and openness to improvements. <http://www.tader.info/support.html#vipreader>;)

DJ: Please also consider encouraging support for development of VIP Reader via donation to SZB, the Swiss non-profit which commissioned the software's development.

> (tangent: VIP PDF-Reader provides excellent line, word, and character spacing settings – you can set them to any point, instead of just selecting from a limited number of pre-defined points. My problem is that I haven't figured out how to say that succinctly in <http://www.tader.info/support.html#vipreader>;. If you have suggestions for a term to express it, I'd really appreciate the help. :)

DJ: Interesting question, I will ponder it.

Perhaps...

…"full flexibility in representing text, including… <a list>"

> SLH: It seems that my lack of distinction between files and format was the source of disagreements. I'm sorry! I'm optimistic that with these clarifications we're now more aligned to work together on making information more accessible to all!

DJ: We are! Thank you for being so open to the discussion!

Duff.