WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: VPATs for Word, PPT, Excel, etc.

for

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Jun 6, 2018 12:56PM

Thanks for the information, Ryan,

> What each agency accepts is up to
> each agency, but there is a strong effort to make one checklist for each
> file type.

Ok, I thought so. This is helpful… I will have a idea put-together to bounce off you soon. :-)

>> Do you use the PDF/UA flag as part of your deliverable?
>
> Speaking with knowledge of HHS only. HHS has used PDF/UA as a basis for our
> March 2013 release of the PDF checklist.

OK, excellent.

> We don't cover every element of
> the PDF/UA checklist because there's 130 or so checks in UA's requirements,

Technically true, but since 87 of those checks don't require a human (except to review failures), and the rest are the inevitable "human judgement" questions such as logical reading order and semantic appropriateness, testing for PDF/UA conformance doesn't have to be too fraught.

> as one of 2 primary authors, I knew handing a checklist of 130 to the
> various groups that needed to sign off on it, it would never fly. UA is not
> explicitly mentioned in the 2013 version because that would blow up for
> using a new term. HHS requires our PDF checklist for PDF deliverable. The
> checklist is required because there's no 100% accurate test, though I know
> some third-party tools come close.

OK, so…

- PDF/UA helped inform development of your own checklist
- But you don't use the fact of the claim of PDF/UA conformance (which is intended for use only when all software and human-checks have been verified for that file) as part of your model? Is that so?

What I'm getting at is: If someone has claimed PDF/UA, and if the claim is trustworthy… what are the other checks that apply? I'm thinking… perhaps the specific color-contrast checks defined in WCAG 2.0?

Could the checklist for PDF be simpler if it was composed of:

- PDF/UA conformance (verified by vendor and spot-tested (or whatever) by the procuring agency
- Additional specifications (i.e., the gap between whatever PDF/UA represents and the standard you want to meet)

Is the problem…
- PDF/UA is TOO restrictive? (perhaps, because it requires sensible heading-levels)
- PDF/UA is too hard to achieve with current tools?
- Other?

I am NOT judging / doubting / complaining! I just want to understand how you thought about this.

Thanks,

Duff.