WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re[2]: adobe 6.0 accessibility

for

From: Jared Smith
Date: Oct 10, 2003 10:56AM

Wayne-

I totally agree with your argument that, in most cases, Adobe Acrobat
falls short when it comes to accessibility for diverse groups. PDF
documents do, however, play a role in Web content - as you state, "the
main purpose for PDF is to create exact images of printed pages".

Instead of trying to enact a ban on PDF for the sake of accessibility
(something that will undoubtedly bring resistance in a campus
setting), perhaps work on implementing a 'Web first, print second'
policy. This is really the dilemma with PDF documents, they are
typically designed as the first iteration of media. Developers then
struggle to make an HTML alternative or attempt in vain to make the
PDF itself universally accessible. If content were created for the Web,
in accessible HTML first, then provided as an alternative in PDF format (the
HTML to PDF conversion is simple), then the PDF document is there to
serve its function, you don't have the resistance you'd confront with
an anti-PDF campaign, and you get better accessibility. In doing so, I
think you'd find that the use of PDF will dramatically decrease on its
own, as designers and end users will typically choose HTML over PDF
any day.

Jared Smith
WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind)
Center for Persons with Disabilities
Utah State University



***************
On Friday, October 10, 2003 you sent:
WD> Jeb and all.

WD> As a low vision user, I have found PDF the worst product for accessibility
WD> out there. The problem is simple. The main purpose for PDF is to create
WD> exact images of printed pages. Well, print never worked for any visually
WD> impaired people. So here we have an example of brilliant mathematics and
WD> engineering spent on giving us an electronic version of something that never
WD> worked.

WD> Most low vision users, expecially those between 20/80 and 20/200 prefer,
WD> large print, well spaced output that has been reformatted to fit the
WD> available screen space. Most word processors do this extremely well. The
WD> problem with PDF is that it does not enlarge intelligently. You cannot
WD> control the spacing between lines. It doesn't port well into any accessible
WD> visual interface.

WD> Any product that enlarges without word wrapping is not accessible to low
WD> vision users.

WD> There is a large faculty that is assumed by many if not most in the
WD> accessiblity business. That is that one size fits all. Audio output is not
WD> the best or even the reasonable accommodation for people who can see, but
WD> not a lot. The fact that PDF, or any format can be ported to screen readers
WD> does not make it accessible. Any interface that cannot be enlarge by a
WD> factor of 4 intelligently, is not really accessible. Also, without user
WD> control of color, most products are marginal.

WD> Poorly formated PDF is useless. Well formatted PDF is difficult to use, but
WD> marginally possible. I usually spend about 10 minutes per page to obtain a
WD> good readible document.

WD> This year befor my term as Academic Senate Chair ends I hope to enact a
WD> complete ban of PDF use on my campus. Next, I will try to extend it to the
WD> entire CSU System.

WD> Wish me luck,

WD> Wayne Dick
WD> Chair Academic Senate
WD> Professor Computer Engineering and Computer Science
WD> CSU Long Beach



WD> ----
WD> To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
WD> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


***************


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/