E-mail List Archives

Re: clarification please -> PDF/UA

for

From: Jon Metz
Date: Feb 26, 2015 10:44AM


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:


> The techniques do not suggest that using Word or Acrobat is the ONLY way
> to accomplish a specific goal, just that they provide a way. I was the one
> who introduced the content in the PDF techniques, including the Word and
> Acrobat examples, and we added the Open Office example as part of the
> review process within the group.


I can see your argument. But perhaps you can tell me why this is the only
area where an authoring software has been defined when explaining how to
implement WCAG recommendations. Why don't you include screenshots of
Dreamweaver with instructions on how to do that when writing HTML? This is
not "How to meet WCAG for proprietary software," as is the case when
talking about Flash. PDF has been with the ISO since 2008, so WCAG should
probably rely on what is required according to 1.7 rather than which
version of Word you are using.

I was the one who introduced the content in the PDF techniques, including
> the Word and Acrobat examples, and we added the Open Office example as part
> of the review process within the group.


And I truly believe this was a crucial addition to making the case that
WCAG isn't strictly for HTML, which is a frustrating misconception that I
often dispel to my clients. I think highly of you for introducing the
examples, and clearly the Working Group has benefited from your leadership.
I just believe that it doesn't go far enough to explain what is needed.
This makes it look like WCAG is saying the only way to make an accessible
PDF is to use Word and Acrobat.

And I have proof as to why this is detrimental. I had a client who had been
designing documents using InDesign, and then hired an insanely talented
designer to come in and *rebuild each heavily designed document into Word*,
based on what was recommended from WCAG as a technique!

We're happy to add additional tools, but we are bandwidth constrained in
> the group and as far as how PDF is supported in the full set of
> PDF-producing tools we are also knowledge-constrained.


So far the best answer seems to be PDF/UA. It doesn't makes sense to
recommend WCAG as the sole answer to one's PDF accessibility woes, yet then
explain how there are no resources to address it correctly. The current
process of relying on the status quo doesn't do anybody any good,
especially when there is already a recommended specification out there that
does have the resources to address it.

Anyone can consider this an open invitation to share information or pull
> requests that will help us increase the utility of the techniques.


There have been several voices on this list that seem to understand the
value of PDF/UA as well as how to implement it. Perhaps some sort of
voluntary open collaboration would best help both the ISO and WCAG. There's
no reason they couldn't work together to achieve the same goal, is there?

Best,
Jon

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> > II doubt I'm not the only one raising an eyebrow that an organization
> that advocates against endorsing software or using blatant superlatives
> uses screenshots of proprietary software and publicly claims "On the Home
> ribbon, use the lists tools to create or repair lists in Word documents.
> This is the easiest way to ensure that lists are formatted correctly when
> they are converted to PDF.".
>
> I don't consider this an endorsement. The fact is many if not most people
> are using Word, InDesign, and Acrobat at some point in the process to
> create tagged PDF content These tools are also something that people are
> familiar with and not providing steps to use them would be more harmful.
> If you feel additional software such as LibreOffice or Nuance PDF Creator
> Pro should be listed by all means submit a pull request to have those added
> to the github repository.
>
> I agree with Jon Avila's comment. These are mentioned in specific PDF
> techniques and we are not only willing to add additional tools, but have
> already done so as in the case with Open Office. The techniques do not
> suggest that using Word or Acrobat is the ONLY way to accomplish a specific
> goal, just that they provide a way. I was the one who introduced the
> content in the PDF techniques, including the Word and Acrobat examples, and
> we added the Open Office example as part of the review process within the
> group. We're happy to add additional tools, but we are bandwidth
> constrained in the group and as far as how PDF is supported in the full set
> of PDF-producing tools we are also knowledge-constrained. Anyone can
> consider this an open invitation to share information or pull requests that
> will help us increase the utility of the techniques.
>
> AWK
> > > >