WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

for

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Jul 31, 2018 11:57AM


I would add to Olaf that preflight which I believe can be found under the print production tools has some other useful but advanced features allowing users to look at the content stream and also run PDF syntax checking for docs with invalid structures.

Jonathan

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 31, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Olaf Drümmer < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> When speaking of Acrobat, it should also be noted that there is a PDF/UA-1 checker buried in the Acrobat Preflight plug-in. Its approach is similar to that of PAC 3 (which is also very worthwhile). PAC 3 and AFAIK CommonLook Validator are free (and Preflight PDF/UA-1 check is 'free' if you already have a recent version of Acrobat Pro) - why ot give each of them a try and determine which suit you best?
>
> Olaf
>
>
>> On 31. Jul 2018, at 14:51, Alan Zaitchik < <EMAIL REMOVED> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>
>> >> >> >> >
> > > >