WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

for

From: chagnon@pubcom.com
Date: Jul 30, 2018 4:59PM

We find that no one tool finds everything.
We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
Wish it did a better job, though.

--Bevi Chagnon

- - -
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | <EMAIL REMOVED>
- - -
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
- - -
Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of
Tomlins Diane
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

Hi everyone,

Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling
us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
solution for PDFs.

The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not
be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."

So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use
the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
and the document will have failures in Acrobat.

The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
contingent of folks on Macs.

Thanks!

Diane R Tomlins
HCA IT&S | Digital Media
Accessibility SME