E-mail List Archives
Re: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) vs. Adobe Acrobat Pro XI full check
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Apr 3, 2014 3:23PM
- Next message: Shuttlesworth, Rachel: "Request for assistance regarding presentation for web developers/designers"
- Previous message: Chagnon | PubCom: "Re: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC)vs.AdobeAcrobatProXI full check"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Chagnon | PubCom: "Re: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC)vs.AdobeAcrobatProXI full check"
- View all messages in this Thread
Todd,
>For example, PAC always flags borders, table borders, etc... as untagged
content, whereas, Acrobat full check does not.
I don't use PAC, so I don't know the error it throws. I would open up the
content panel, find the borders - usually Paths. If they are within an
<Artifact>, I'd ignore the error and move on. If not, create an Artifact.
>Neither tool flags if the <Reference> tag is properly used for links
referencing content within the document,
This is a flaw of most automatic checkers, <Reference> can be used in a
number of ways, so it is hard to code something that checks for such
accurately. If you're on LinkedIn, the following thread may be a good read:
http://is.gd/nRBpOL
Re <label> not being used: The label tag can do a number of things, so
where it isn't being used, may cause an issue.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Liko, Todd < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I use both tools to assess a PDF document for accessibility. Both tools
> provide reports and are more often than not, quite different from each
> other. For example, PAC always flags borders, table borders, etc... as
> untagged content, whereas, Acrobat full check does not. Adobe full check
> always flags table irregularity even when colspan or rowspan are properly
> set.
>
> Neither tool flags if the <Reference> tag is properly used for links
> referencing content within the document,but that makes sense as the
> automated check cannot determine if the link in internal or external. I
> always add it because it is part of the ISO Standard.
>
> I also realize the PAC tool assesses against the Matterhorn Protocol which
> is not required under WCAG 2.0, therefore returns many errors that probably
> can be overlooked. I prefer to address the errors, however, in order to be
> proactive.
>
> I guess my question is should I care that the table borders are untagged,
> that the <Reference> tag or <Label> tag is not being used? Obviously
> addressing all of these items requires more effort and time and I am
> getting some pushback/questions as to why it takes so my time to make a PDF
> document accessible.
>
> There are also suggestions that we simply convert all PDF documents to
> HTML 5, in order to meet the Standard on Mobile Devices.
>
> Any thoughts or feedback would be much appreciated.
>
> _______
> Todd Liko
> Communications Advisor | Conseiller en communications
> Web Services | Services Web
> Communications and Marketing | Communications et Marketing
> 427 Avenue Laurier Avenue West (AEAD), Ottawa ON K1A 0N5
> 427 Avenue Laurier Ouest (AEAD), Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0N5
> e-mail / courriel: <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> telephone / téléphone: (613) 949-9425 | fax / télécopieur: (613) 949-2386
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
>
> > > >
- Next message: Shuttlesworth, Rachel: "Request for assistance regarding presentation for web developers/designers"
- Previous message: Chagnon | PubCom: "Re: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC)vs.AdobeAcrobatProXI full check"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Chagnon | PubCom: "Re: PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC)vs.AdobeAcrobatProXI full check"
- View all messages in this Thread