WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: How is PDF accessibility evaluated?

for

From: Lynn Holdsworth
Date: Feb 6, 2015 3:41PM

Thanks guys - this is very useful.

I guess an organisation could choose to require that their PDF's are
tested using WCAG2, so long as they couldn't claim conformance if all
checkpoints are passed.

Best, Lynn

On 06/02/2015, Susan Grossman < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> So I shouldn't be using the WCAG guidelines (and I thought the W3 was a
> standards board) at all?
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> Duff is correct; WCAG has only techniques & methods for making accessible
>> PDFs. They are not standards nor guidelines. Far from it!
>>
>> Because they are not standards, they cannot be used, for example, to
>> assess whether a PDF is in fact accessible. Governments can't formally
>> adopt them into law as they have WCAG itself. You can't file a complaint
>> using techniques to back up your claim because techniques can't hold up in
>> court. So think of what WCAG has published as only suggestions on how to
>> make an accessible PDF.
>>
>> For better guidance on standards for PDFs, see the PDF/UA Competence
>> Center's website at
>> http://www.pdfa.org/competence-centers/pdfua-competence-center/ You'll
>> learn about the ISO 14289 standard for Universally Accessible PDFs ... a
>> real standard.
>>
>> And you'll also Duff's smiling mug gracing the website's banner <grin>
>>
>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>
>> — — —
>> Bevi Chagnon | www.PubCom.com
>> Consultants, Trainers, Designers, and Developers
>> For publishing technologies
>> | Acrobat PDF | Digital Media | XML and Automated Workflows
>> | GPO | Print | Desktop Publishing | Sec. 508 Accessibility | EPUBs
>> — — —
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> > WCAG 2.0 has standards for PDF's located here:
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/pdf.html
>>
>> From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto:
>> <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Duff Johnson
>> Clarification: these are Techniques, not Standards… a non-trivial
>> distinction.
>>
>> >> >> >>
>
>
>
> --
> *Susan R. Grossman*
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > > >