WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?


From: Karlen Communications
Date: Jul 31, 2018 7:20AM

CommonLook Validator is a separate product from the CommonLook Global Access tool. Validator is part of the paid for tool that CommonLook has pulled out and offers free as a stand alone checker.

If you follow the link to get the free trial, you go to a webpage where you need to enter your name and e-mail address.

You are agreeing to let them use your information by filling in the form. The paragraph about this is just after the information you enter. I just walked through the process.

I know the language on the site is confusing given that they do have Validator as part of the for purchase CommonLook Global Access, but I didn't see anything on the page that would indicate that at some point you have to paid for Validator. I've had my copy of it since they released it as a stand-alone tool.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Philip Kiff
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

Alan, I've seen folks mention the CommonLook Validator, but their website doesn't make it clear that it is intended for free use, they tell you to contact them for a "free trial" version:

Does their license allow ongoing use without purchasing the product?


On 2018-07-31 8:51 AM, Alan Zaitchik wrote:
> Bevi,
> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot
> more issues that Acrobat's Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you're checking against.) Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
> A
>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < <EMAIL REMOVED> > < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> 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
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives