E-mail List Archives
Thread: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
Number of posts in this thread: 23 (In chronological order)
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Tue, Nov 30 2010 4:36PM
Subject: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
No previous message | Next message →
The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) has released its long-awaited report on the Accessibility of PDF documents.
http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/pdf-accessibility-study/index.html
--
Kerry Webb
Policy Office
InTACT, ACT Government
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Tue, Nov 30 2010 7:54PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks, Kerry.
This report is very informative.
--Bevi Chagnon
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
Bevi Chagnon | PubCom | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | 301-585-8805
US Government publishing specialists, trainers, consultants | print, press,
web, Acrobat PDF & 508 Accessibility
Online at the blog: It's 2010. Where's your career heading?
www.pubcom.com/newsletter
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Tue, Nov 30 2010 8:42PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Kerry,
Thanks for posting this.
I have numerous thoughts, but will give the entire thing a reading before I comment in detail. Based on the summary, I'm impressed.
As the report notes, PDF/UA (Universal Accessibility) is currently under development. I thought it opportune to update the community on the current status of the International Standard for Universally Accessible PDF.
As AIIM's US chair for ISO/DIS 14289 (PDF/UA) for the past five years, I'm very pleased to be able to say that PDF/UA is now (as of November 2, 2010) a "Draft International Standard" (DIS). As the AGIMO report says, the International Committee does expect and anticipate publication in 2011 (hopefully late summer).
In fact, the International Committee for ISO 14289 is meeting this Wednesday in Ottawa to launch Part 2 of ISO 14289, which will be based on the forthcoming (and also under development) Part 2 of ISO 32000 (PDF 2.0).
Software developers with an interest in PDF should take note: ISO 14289 sets specific normative conditions that define PDF features required in order to consider PDF files "accessible"; these are so-called "file format requirements".
In addition, ISO 14289 includes requirements for "conforming readers" - software such as Adobe's Reader and its imitators. ISO 14289 also includes requirements for "conforming Assistive Technology", which usually (but not always) operates in conjunction with a PDF reader.
Adobe, Appligent and Microsoft, participants in both the US and International Committees for this Standard, gave a presentation discussing the highlights of PDF/UA at the Chicago ATIA conference in October. The presentation is available here:
http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf-atia2010
AIIM's US Committee for ISO 1429 is also in the process of writing an Implementation Guide for developers and a Best Practices document for authors and end-users, to accompany ISO 14289-1.
Ok, but I digress. I will digest the AGIMO report carefully, and write a blog post with some reflections.
Thanks very much for this fine effort to discuss and educate on PDF accessibility.
Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions, CEO
US Committee for ISO/DIS 14289 (PDF/UA), Chair
22 E. Baltimore Ave
Lansdowne, PA 19050
+1 610 284 4006
+1 617 553 1934 (direct)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.appligent.com
http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
>
> The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) has released its long-awaited report on the Accessibility of PDF documents.
>
> http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/pdf-accessibility-study/index.html
>
> --
> Kerry Webb
> Policy Office
> InTACT, ACT Government
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Tue, Nov 30 2010 8:51PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Duff, thanks for the additional background!
Cliff T.
Cliff Tyllick
Web development coordinator
Agency Communications Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
512/239-4516
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 11/30/10 9:43 PM >>>
Kerry,
Thanks for posting this.
I have numerous thoughts, but will give the entire thing a reading before I comment in detail. Based on the summary, I'm impressed.
As the report notes, PDF/UA (Universal Accessibility) is currently under development. I thought it opportune to update the community on the current status of the International Standard for Universally Accessible PDF.
As AIIM's US chair for ISO/DIS 14289 (PDF/UA) for the past five years, I'm very pleased to be able to say that PDF/UA is now (as of November 2, 2010) a "Draft International Standard" (DIS). As the AGIMO report says, the International Committee does expect and anticipate publication in 2011 (hopefully late summer).
In fact, the International Committee for ISO 14289 is meeting this Wednesday in Ottawa to launch Part 2 of ISO 14289, which will be based on the forthcoming (and also under development) Part 2 of ISO 32000 (PDF 2.0).
Software developers with an interest in PDF should take note: ISO 14289 sets specific normative conditions that define PDF features required in order to consider PDF files "accessible"; these are so-called "file format requirements".
In addition, ISO 14289 includes requirements for "conforming readers" - software such as Adobe's Reader and its imitators. ISO 14289 also includes requirements for "conforming Assistive Technology", which usually (but not always) operates in conjunction with a PDF reader.
Adobe, Appligent and Microsoft, participants in both the US and International Committees for this Standard, gave a presentation discussing the highlights of PDF/UA at the Chicago ATIA conference in October. The presentation is available here:
http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf-atia2010
AIIM's US Committee for ISO 1429 is also in the process of writing an Implementation Guide for developers and a Best Practices document for authors and end-users, to accompany ISO 14289-1.
Ok, but I digress. I will digest the AGIMO report carefully, and write a blog post with some reflections.
Thanks very much for this fine effort to discuss and educate on PDF accessibility.
Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions, CEO
US Committee for ISO/DIS 14289 (PDF/UA), Chair
22 E. Baltimore Ave
Lansdowne, PA 19050
+1 610 284 4006
+1 617 553 1934 (direct)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.appligent.com
http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
>
> The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) has released its long-awaited report on the Accessibility of PDF documents.
>
> http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/pdf-accessibility-study/index.html
>
> --
> Kerry Webb
> Policy Office
> InTACT, ACT Government
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From: Michael.Moore
Date: Fri, Dec 03 2010 8:30AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Great to see that the software development folks are included in this. So many PDFs in government are autogenerated from enterprise reporting systems it would be nice if we could get accessible output. I know Adobe gets the rap for inaccessible PDFs but truth be told they have nothing to do with most of the worst examples except that they provide access to them through a pretty damn good reader.
Mike Moore
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 8:09AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
My analysis of the recent Australian government report on PDF accessibility:
http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf-AGIMO-Report-Assessment
Duff Johnson, CEO
Appligent Document Solutions
22 E. Baltimore Ave
Lansdowne, PA 19050
+1 610 284 4006
+1 617 553 1934 (direct)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.appligent.com
http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
>
> The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) has released its long-awaited report on the Accessibility of PDF documents.
>
> http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/pdf-accessibility-study/index.html
>
> --
> Kerry Webb
> Policy Office
> InTACT, ACT Government
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From: Langum, Michael J
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 8:54AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Duff,
I thought this was an excellent and insightful article.
In the article, you mentioned that there was no data comparing the costs of remediation (e.g. adding tags, and applying structural tags), to reformatting (e.g. into HTML).
You also questioned the cost of providing accessibility before and after training authors on the need and methods for adding structure and other elements to documents would also be very valuable.
Are you aware of any good studies that make such comparisons. It seems like that would be a good topic for some doctoral student, or Adobe (since they own both Acrobat and Dreamweaver).
-- Mike
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 9:33AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Langum, Michael J wrote:
> I thought this was an excellent and insightful article.
Thanks! Much appreciated.
> In the article, you mentioned that there was no data comparing
> the costs of remediation (e.g. adding tags, and applying structural
> tags), to reformatting (e.g. into HTML).
Well... there's no study on the subject that I'm aware of. Which is a great shame, because there are lots of strong opinions on this - all of which would greatly benefit from a cold shower of fact.
> You also questioned the cost of providing accessibility before
> and after training authors on the need and methods for adding
> structure and other elements to documents would also be very valuable.
This is one of the things usually neglected when comparing HTML to PDF in accessibility terms. The stumbling point, I think, is that web-content managers are a (relatively) tiny group of technically-minded people. Finding and training HTML authors on accessibility techniques is (relatively) easy... compared to PDF.
In the world of PDF, everyone's an author, regardless of training, software quality, etc.
My point in the article is simply that rather than wishing the "hard case" of PDF away by pretending that PDF can be readily replaced or augmented with HTML, the correct policy simply demands the same accessibility from PDF as is demanded from any other format... and recognizes that broad-based training, education and resources will be necessary to get there.
The alternative is that web-content managers become the choke-point through which all the world's content has to fit before it's accessible, and that's absurd.
> Are you aware of any good studies that make such comparisons.
I wish I was aware of such, but I am not.
> It seems like that would be a good topic for some doctoral student, or Adobe (since they own both Acrobat and Dreamweaver).
Agreed.
Given that this question has distinct budgetary overtones and consequences, and given the existing mandates... it's also an appropriate sort of thing for government agencies to study (or fund the study thereof).
Hint Hint! :-)
Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com
Blog: http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf
Tweets: http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
From: Birkir Rúnar Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 11:09AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
One thing that PDF and Daisy have, that other formats simply do not
really, is pageination.
HTML does not, as far as I know, allow a user to go to a specific
page, if the document is alternatively produced (e.g. scanned into
Word or plain text) a lot of manual work would need to go into setting
up the pageination again.
It is important for the blind end user to be able to follow along and
not having to translate or arbitrarily look for text, in order to keep
up with sighted peers in an academic or corporate environment.
Therefore the .pdf technology actually offers features the "accessible
alternatives" do not.
I feel this is often forgotten when people discuss the accessibility
(or not) of .pdf files. And the importance of having one source file
used by all users goes beyond pageination as well. I, as a blind user,
am really sick and tired of working with a file specially made for me
with slight variations from the original, even if I understand the
current need and appreciate that I do have access.
The blind community needs to move towards using the sighted world and
away from special formats.
Therefore it seems a lot more logical to me to fix accessibility
issues with .pdf files, rather than solve the problem by producing
other formats, but that has been the standard thinking in many ways
for a long time, probably created by necessity, back when we had a lot
less flexible and adaptive technology to work with.
The option of creating content specifically for the blind also puts
more work and resources on dedicated personnel that could be used to
fixing the original accessibility problem, be it on the
server/authoring side, general education or Assistive Technology bug
fixes and improvements.
On 1/5/11, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Langum, Michael J wrote:
>
>> I thought this was an excellent and insightful article.
>
> Thanks! Much appreciated.
>
>> In the article, you mentioned that there was no data comparing
>> the costs of remediation (e.g. adding tags, and applying structural
>> tags), to reformatting (e.g. into HTML).
>
> Well... there's no study on the subject that I'm aware of. Which is a great
> shame, because there are lots of strong opinions on this - all of which
> would greatly benefit from a cold shower of fact.
>
>> You also questioned the cost of providing accessibility before
>> and after training authors on the need and methods for adding
>> structure and other elements to documents would also be very valuable.
>
> This is one of the things usually neglected when comparing HTML to PDF in
> accessibility terms. The stumbling point, I think, is that web-content
> managers are a (relatively) tiny group of technically-minded people. Finding
> and training HTML authors on accessibility techniques is (relatively)
> easy... compared to PDF.
>
> In the world of PDF, everyone's an author, regardless of training, software
> quality, etc.
>
> My point in the article is simply that rather than wishing the "hard case"
> of PDF away by pretending that PDF can be readily replaced or augmented with
> HTML, the correct policy simply demands the same accessibility from PDF as
> is demanded from any other format... and recognizes that broad-based
> training, education and resources will be necessary to get there.
>
> The alternative is that web-content managers become the choke-point through
> which all the world's content has to fit before it's accessible, and that's
> absurd.
>
>> Are you aware of any good studies that make such comparisons.
>
> I wish I was aware of such, but I am not.
>
>> It seems like that would be a good topic for some doctoral student, or
>> Adobe (since they own both Acrobat and Dreamweaver).
>
> Agreed.
>
> Given that this question has distinct budgetary overtones and consequences,
> and given the existing mandates... it's also an appropriate sort of thing
> for government agencies to study (or fund the study thereof).
>
> Hint Hint! :-)
>
> Duff Johnson
> Appligent Document Solutions
> http://www.appligent.com
> Blog: http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf
> Tweets: http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
>
>
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 4:12PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Birkir,
I think you've put it much better than I, and far more concisely!
Duff.
On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Birkir Rúnar Gunnarsson wrote:
> One thing that PDF and Daisy have, that other formats simply do not
> really, is pageination.
> HTML does not, as far as I know, allow a user to go to a specific
> page, if the document is alternatively produced (e.g. scanned into
> Word or plain text) a lot of manual work would need to go into setting
> up the pageination again.
> It is important for the blind end user to be able to follow along and
> not having to translate or arbitrarily look for text, in order to keep
> up with sighted peers in an academic or corporate environment.
> Therefore the .pdf technology actually offers features the "accessible
> alternatives" do not.
> I feel this is often forgotten when people discuss the accessibility
> (or not) of .pdf files. And the importance of having one source file
> used by all users goes beyond pageination as well. I, as a blind user,
> am really sick and tired of working with a file specially made for me
> with slight variations from the original, even if I understand the
> current need and appreciate that I do have access.
> The blind community needs to move towards using the sighted world and
> away from special formats.
> Therefore it seems a lot more logical to me to fix accessibility
> issues with .pdf files, rather than solve the problem by producing
> other formats, but that has been the standard thinking in many ways
> for a long time, probably created by necessity, back when we had a lot
> less flexible and adaptive technology to work with.
> The option of creating content specifically for the blind also puts
> more work and resources on dedicated personnel that could be used to
> fixing the original accessibility problem, be it on the
> server/authoring side, general education or Assistive Technology bug
> fixes and improvements.
>
>
> On 1/5/11, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Langum, Michael J wrote:
>>
>>> I thought this was an excellent and insightful article.
>>
>> Thanks! Much appreciated.
>>
>>> In the article, you mentioned that there was no data comparing
>>> the costs of remediation (e.g. adding tags, and applying structural
>>> tags), to reformatting (e.g. into HTML).
>>
>> Well... there's no study on the subject that I'm aware of. Which is a great
>> shame, because there are lots of strong opinions on this - all of which
>> would greatly benefit from a cold shower of fact.
>>
>>> You also questioned the cost of providing accessibility before
>>> and after training authors on the need and methods for adding
>>> structure and other elements to documents would also be very valuable.
>>
>> This is one of the things usually neglected when comparing HTML to PDF in
>> accessibility terms. The stumbling point, I think, is that web-content
>> managers are a (relatively) tiny group of technically-minded people. Finding
>> and training HTML authors on accessibility techniques is (relatively)
>> easy... compared to PDF.
>>
>> In the world of PDF, everyone's an author, regardless of training, software
>> quality, etc.
>>
>> My point in the article is simply that rather than wishing the "hard case"
>> of PDF away by pretending that PDF can be readily replaced or augmented with
>> HTML, the correct policy simply demands the same accessibility from PDF as
>> is demanded from any other format... and recognizes that broad-based
>> training, education and resources will be necessary to get there.
>>
>> The alternative is that web-content managers become the choke-point through
>> which all the world's content has to fit before it's accessible, and that's
>> absurd.
>>
>>> Are you aware of any good studies that make such comparisons.
>>
>> I wish I was aware of such, but I am not.
>>
>>> It seems like that would be a good topic for some doctoral student, or
>>> Adobe (since they own both Acrobat and Dreamweaver).
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Given that this question has distinct budgetary overtones and consequences,
>> and given the existing mandates... it's also an appropriate sort of thing
>> for government agencies to study (or fund the study thereof).
>>
>> Hint Hint! :-)
>>
>> Duff Johnson
>> Appligent Document Solutions
>> http://www.appligent.com
>> Blog: http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf
>> Tweets: http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
>>
>>
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 4:33PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Birkir wrote:
> Therefore it seems a lot more logical to me to fix accessibility
> issues with .pdf files, rather than solve the problem by producing
> other formats, but that has been the standard thinking in many ways
> for a long time, probably created by necessity, back when we had a lot
> less flexible and adaptive technology to work with.
More logical - no argument there. But not more achievable (in the short term).
In our jurisdiction, users typically create PDFs from Word documents by hitting a button. Why? Because they
(a) don't have the proper training, and
(b) don't have the proper software.
We'll do our best to remedy both of these, but it will take time. In the meantime, publishing a Word or RTF equivalent beside the poorly-tagged PDF will (we hope) help a little.
> The option of creating content specifically for the blind also puts
> more work and resources on dedicated personnel that could be used to
> fixing the original accessibility problem, be it on the
> server/authoring side, general education or Assistive Technology bug
> fixes and improvements.
>
I'd argue that it would usually take "more work and resources" to fix the PDF accessibility problem than to publish an equivalent document - poor though it might be.
One thing I'd like to know more about is the extent that older AT software can or can't handle properly-tagged PDF.
I do appreciate the effort that Duff and his colleagues have taken to address the issues raised in the report.
Kerry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Birkir Rúnar Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 5:06PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Kerry
I certainly do not mean to belittle the problems we face, or say that
alternative format should never be an option.
I mostly wanted to emphasize that the way of thinking, in my mind,
should be more towards "what do we need to solve this problem" rather
than "this does not work".
The downside to Word documents is that Word is unwieldy in many ways,
not free, and things such as page numbers, do not match up with the
original document, unless a lot of work is provided.
It is also both a read and write document format, which nicessitates
more complex navigation options (jumping between headers in a Word
document is not as straight forward as a single key push, even
requires a settings change in Jaws, I think).
It also open the possibility for document alterations.
What I am driving at is that I see the potential for .pdf files to be
the most accessible file format availble to blind users, if tagged
correctly (and that is a big if) and with some software improvements
The reader is free, you can jump between headings and pages, they are
anounced very nicely (in NVDA, Jaws and Hal, though only v12 of Hal,
not older versions, Hal prior to v12 does not recognize links, headers
or lists in a pdf document, and does not handle pdf forms).
I am worried that a report, if perceived to negatively, will
discourage the improvement efforts necessary to address the underlying
issues.
It won't happen overnight either, and we need information now, not in
2 years, but we need to balance these things, and I would not want the
potential that pdf has for accessibility to fall by the wayside.
I realize this is a complex process and there are no easy answers, I
just wanted to bring this point of view out better, since, as a blind
user, I am excited about the potential of the format, despite having
to email pdf creation people myself half the time to tell them to make
improvements, and try OCR scanning on quite a lot of them as well.
Thanks
-Birkir
On 1/5/11, Webb, KerryA < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Birkir wrote:
>
>> Therefore it seems a lot more logical to me to fix accessibility
>> issues with .pdf files, rather than solve the problem by producing
>> other formats, but that has been the standard thinking in many ways
>> for a long time, probably created by necessity, back when we had a lot
>> less flexible and adaptive technology to work with.
>
> More logical - no argument there. But not more achievable (in the short
> term).
>
> In our jurisdiction, users typically create PDFs from Word documents by
> hitting a button. Why? Because they
> (a) don't have the proper training, and
> (b) don't have the proper software.
>
> We'll do our best to remedy both of these, but it will take time. In the
> meantime, publishing a Word or RTF equivalent beside the poorly-tagged PDF
> will (we hope) help a little.
>
>> The option of creating content specifically for the blind also puts
>> more work and resources on dedicated personnel that could be used to
>> fixing the original accessibility problem, be it on the
>> server/authoring side, general education or Assistive Technology bug
>> fixes and improvements.
>>
>
> I'd argue that it would usually take "more work and resources" to fix the
> PDF accessibility problem than to publish an equivalent document - poor
> though it might be.
>
> One thing I'd like to know more about is the extent that older AT software
> can or can't handle properly-tagged PDF.
>
> I do appreciate the effort that Duff and his colleagues have taken to
> address the issues raised in the report.
>
> Kerry
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all
> copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You
> should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any
> other person.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 5:30PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Birkir wrote:
> It also open the possibility for document alterations.
>
I hope you don't mind if I jump on this one; it's a pet peeve of mine.
Some of our people insist on publishing in PDF because "it can't be altered". Often it's people who have to publish contracts or legislation.
I don't buy this. You can do a lot with computers; you can even mock up a genuine-looking altered PDF, so that argument just won't wash.
I think we're in general agreement with the other points of discussion though.
Kerry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 5:54PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
> Birkir wrote:
>
>> It also open the possibility for document alterations.
>>
>
> I hope you don't mind if I jump on this one; it's a pet peeve of mine.
Jumping? I LOVE jumping! :-)
> Some of our people insist on publishing in PDF because "it can't be altered". Often it's people who have to publish contracts or legislation.
C'mon, these aren't technical people we're talking about. They mean that PDF "can't be altered" in the sense that it's not a word-processing file. They're not making a technical claim about the degree of encryption, or lack thereof, in their PDFs.
Their belief is an understandable (if erroneous) extension of the basic truth of PDF (accessibility aside - for a moment!); that it's self-contained, and appears the same way to all users on all systems.
PDF files don't suffer the indignities of (for example) page-breaks getting screwed up when you send a DOC from A to B.
A simple way to rid users of their invalid assumptions about the inviolability of PDF is simply to ask them to send you one of their files. You then edit it in a dramatic way (say, remove every other line from the first para) and send it back to them 2 minutes later... all the while making the point that you're using commercial, off the shelf software that anyone can buy.
That usually does the trick.
> I don't buy this. You can do a lot with computers; you can even mock up a genuine-looking altered PDF, so that argument just won't wash.
Certainly, people believe all sorts of things - but it's nice to know when PDF can actually live up to the user's imagination. It's simply that it doesn't happen by magic.
A PDF file may be digitally-signed with a CA (Certificate Authority) providing authentication of the file's origin. The signature itself provides assurance to the end-user that the file has not been altered after application of the signature.
Here's one such example:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf
Try doing that with HTML. ;-)
Duff.
From: Birkir Rúnar Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 6:45PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
You folks certainly have a point, but what I had in mind was more an
unintentional alteration of a file by a user forwarding it.
It'd be easy to select and delete text, and it could even happen by
accident. Any alteration of a .pdf file would have to be intentional.
I just recently openned a Word 2007 file with Jaws and, for some
bizarre reason, Jaws deleted all spaces between paragraphs (the . and
the first letter in the following sentence) in the entire document.
I still have to figure out how in the world that could have happened,
and that is not a subject for this list, but my colleague spent an
hour fixing the file after I emailed it to him.
Thanks
-B
On 1/6/11, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
>
>> Birkir wrote:
>>
>>> It also open the possibility for document alterations.
>>>
>>
>> I hope you don't mind if I jump on this one; it's a pet peeve of mine.
>
> Jumping? I LOVE jumping! :-)
>
>> Some of our people insist on publishing in PDF because "it can't be
>> altered". Often it's people who have to publish contracts or legislation.
>
> C'mon, these aren't technical people we're talking about. They mean that
> PDF "can't be altered" in the sense that it's not a word-processing file.
> They're not making a technical claim about the degree of encryption, or lack
> thereof, in their PDFs.
>
> Their belief is an understandable (if erroneous) extension of the basic
> truth of PDF (accessibility aside - for a moment!); that it's
> self-contained, and appears the same way to all users on all systems.
>
> PDF files don't suffer the indignities of (for example) page-breaks getting
> screwed up when you send a DOC from A to B.
>
> A simple way to rid users of their invalid assumptions about the
> inviolability of PDF is simply to ask them to send you one of their files.
> You then edit it in a dramatic way (say, remove every other line from the
> first para) and send it back to them 2 minutes later... all the while making
> the point that you're using commercial, off the shelf software that anyone
> can buy.
>
> That usually does the trick.
>
>> I don't buy this. You can do a lot with computers; you can even mock up a
>> genuine-looking altered PDF, so that argument just won't wash.
>
> Certainly, people believe all sorts of things - but it's nice to know when
> PDF can actually live up to the user's imagination. It's simply that it
> doesn't happen by magic.
>
> A PDF file may be digitally-signed with a CA (Certificate Authority)
> providing authentication of the file's origin. The signature itself provides
> assurance to the end-user that the file has not been altered after
> application of the signature.
>
> Here's one such example:
>
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf
>
> Try doing that with HTML. ;-)
>
> Duff.
>
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Wed, Jan 05 2011 8:00PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Duff wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
>
> > Birkir wrote:
> >
> >> It also open the possibility for document alterations.
> >>
> >
> > I hope you don't mind if I jump on this one; it's a pet peeve of mine.
. . .
>
>
> > I don't buy this. You can do a lot with computers; you can even mock up
> a genuine-looking altered PDF, so that argument just won't wash.
>
> Certainly, people believe all sorts of things - but it's nice to know when
> PDF can actually live up to the user's imagination. It's simply that it
> doesn't happen by magic.
>
> A PDF file may be digitally-signed with a CA (Certificate Authority)
> providing authentication of the file's origin. The signature itself
> provides assurance to the end-user that the file has not been altered
> after application of the signature.
>
> Here's one such example:
>
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf
>
> Try doing that with HTML. ;-)
>
Our go-to guy for CA stuff is away until next Monday; I'll check on our options then.
Thanks
Kerry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Birkir Rúnar Gunnarsson
Date: Fri, Jan 07 2011 11:27AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Cliff
I would appreciate getting a copy of this as well, if that is
something that is not a problem for you.
I am, increasingly, in the business of advising on accessible pdf, and
this could be a very helpful things to have.
-Birkir
On 1/7/11, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Kerry, if the documents you're producing with Acrobat Pro or the Save As PDF
> feature are inaccessible, the Word or RTF files will not be substantially
> better. If the structure is in the Word document, it will carry through to a
> PDF created by those methods. If your authors aren't using styles properly
> in Word, then a screen reader won't be able to identify headings in that
> environment, either.
>
> I hope I don't offend by saying this again, but we've found that along with
> proper training it's necessary to put an interface that supports the
> creation of accessible documents in front of the person using the word
> processor. For Word 2003, I created an Accessibility toolbar. When my
> workplace moved to Word 2007, I worked with our IT staff to create an
> Accessibility tab (it also works in Office 2010).
>
> These interfaces get rid of the buttons that change appearance without
> semantic tagging and consolidate features that are useful when you're
> creating an accessible document.
>
> If you want, I can send you a zip file containing some instructional
> materials on using these interfaces as well as templates that, if placed in
> the Word startup folder, will make the respective feature available whenever
> you open Word.
>
> After all, we're all in this together...
>
> Cliff
>
> Cliff Tyllick
> Usability assessment coordinator
> Agency Communications Division
> Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
> 512-239-4516
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>>>> On 1/5/2011 at 5:29 PM, in message
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "Webb,
>>>> KerryA" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Birkir wrote:
>
>> Therefore it seems a lot more logical to me to fix accessibility
>> issues with .pdf files, rather than solve the problem by producing
>> other formats, but that has been the standard thinking in many ways
>> for a long time, probably created by necessity, back when we had a lot
>> less flexible and adaptive technology to work with.
>
> More logical - no argument there. But not more achievable (in the short
> term).
>
> In our jurisdiction, users typically create PDFs from Word documents by
> hitting a button. Why? Because they
> (a) don't have the proper training, and
> (b) don't have the proper software.
>
> We'll do our best to remedy both of these, but it will take time. In the
> meantime, publishing a Word or RTF equivalent beside the poorly-tagged PDF
> will (we hope) help a little.
>
>> The option of creating content specifically for the blind also puts
>> more work and resources on dedicated personnel that could be used to
>> fixing the original accessibility problem, be it on the
>> server/authoring side, general education or Assistive Technology bug
>> fixes and improvements.
>>
>
> I'd argue that it would usually take "more work and resources" to fix the
> PDF accessibility problem than to publish an equivalent document - poor
> though it might be.
>
> One thing I'd like to know more about is the extent that older AT software
> can or can't handle properly-tagged PDF.
>
> I do appreciate the effort that Duff and his colleagues have taken to
> address the issues raised in the report.
>
> Kerry
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all
> copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You
> should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any
> other person.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From: ckrugman
Date: Fri, Jan 07 2011 11:33AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
As a blind user I agree especially since I have to deal primarily with legal
documents. A different format does not work well when I have to refer to
specific pages or lines or make changes and share the file with others who
are sighted.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Birkir Rúnar Gunnarsson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
> One thing that PDF and Daisy have, that other formats simply do not
> really, is pageination.
> HTML does not, as far as I know, allow a user to go to a specific
> page, if the document is alternatively produced (e.g. scanned into
> Word or plain text) a lot of manual work would need to go into setting
> up the pageination again.
> It is important for the blind end user to be able to follow along and
> not having to translate or arbitrarily look for text, in order to keep
> up with sighted peers in an academic or corporate environment.
> Therefore the .pdf technology actually offers features the "accessible
> alternatives" do not.
> I feel this is often forgotten when people discuss the accessibility
> (or not) of .pdf files. And the importance of having one source file
> used by all users goes beyond pageination as well. I, as a blind user,
> am really sick and tired of working with a file specially made for me
> with slight variations from the original, even if I understand the
> current need and appreciate that I do have access.
> The blind community needs to move towards using the sighted world and
> away from special formats.
> Therefore it seems a lot more logical to me to fix accessibility
> issues with .pdf files, rather than solve the problem by producing
> other formats, but that has been the standard thinking in many ways
> for a long time, probably created by necessity, back when we had a lot
> less flexible and adaptive technology to work with.
> The option of creating content specifically for the blind also puts
> more work and resources on dedicated personnel that could be used to
> fixing the original accessibility problem, be it on the
> server/authoring side, general education or Assistive Technology bug
> fixes and improvements.
>
>
> On 1/5/11, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Langum, Michael J wrote:
>>
>>> I thought this was an excellent and insightful article.
>>
>> Thanks! Much appreciated.
>>
>>> In the article, you mentioned that there was no data comparing
>>> the costs of remediation (e.g. adding tags, and applying structural
>>> tags), to reformatting (e.g. into HTML).
>>
>> Well... there's no study on the subject that I'm aware of. Which is a
>> great
>> shame, because there are lots of strong opinions on this - all of which
>> would greatly benefit from a cold shower of fact.
>>
>>> You also questioned the cost of providing accessibility before
>>> and after training authors on the need and methods for adding
>>> structure and other elements to documents would also be very valuable.
>>
>> This is one of the things usually neglected when comparing HTML to PDF in
>> accessibility terms. The stumbling point, I think, is that web-content
>> managers are a (relatively) tiny group of technically-minded people.
>> Finding
>> and training HTML authors on accessibility techniques is (relatively)
>> easy... compared to PDF.
>>
>> In the world of PDF, everyone's an author, regardless of training,
>> software
>> quality, etc.
>>
>> My point in the article is simply that rather than wishing the "hard
>> case"
>> of PDF away by pretending that PDF can be readily replaced or augmented
>> with
>> HTML, the correct policy simply demands the same accessibility from PDF
>> as
>> is demanded from any other format... and recognizes that broad-based
>> training, education and resources will be necessary to get there.
>>
>> The alternative is that web-content managers become the choke-point
>> through
>> which all the world's content has to fit before it's accessible, and
>> that's
>> absurd.
>>
>>> Are you aware of any good studies that make such comparisons.
>>
>> I wish I was aware of such, but I am not.
>>
>>> It seems like that would be a good topic for some doctoral student, or
>>> Adobe (since they own both Acrobat and Dreamweaver).
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Given that this question has distinct budgetary overtones and
>> consequences,
>> and given the existing mandates... it's also an appropriate sort of thing
>> for government agencies to study (or fund the study thereof).
>>
>> Hint Hint! :-)
>>
>> Duff Johnson
>> Appligent Document Solutions
>> http://www.appligent.com
>> Blog: http://www.appligent.com/talkingpdf
>> Tweets: http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson
>>
>>
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Fri, Jan 07 2011 11:39AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Kerry, if the documents you're producing with Acrobat Pro or the Save As PDF feature are inaccessible, the Word or RTF files will not be substantially better. If the structure is in the Word document, it will carry through to a PDF created by those methods. If your authors aren't using styles properly in Word, then a screen reader won't be able to identify headings in that environment, either.
I hope I don't offend by saying this again, but we've found that along with proper training it's necessary to put an interface that supports the creation of accessible documents in front of the person using the word processor. For Word 2003, I created an Accessibility toolbar. When my workplace moved to Word 2007, I worked with our IT staff to create an Accessibility tab (it also works in Office 2010).
These interfaces get rid of the buttons that change appearance without semantic tagging and consolidate features that are useful when you're creating an accessible document.
If you want, I can send you a zip file containing some instructional materials on using these interfaces as well as templates that, if placed in the Word startup folder, will make the respective feature available whenever you open Word.
After all, we're all in this together...
Cliff
Cliff Tyllick
Usability assessment coordinator
Agency Communications Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
512-239-4516
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> On 1/5/2011 at 5:29 PM, in message < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "Webb, KerryA" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
Birkir wrote:
> Therefore it seems a lot more logical to me to fix accessibility
> issues with .pdf files, rather than solve the problem by producing
> other formats, but that has been the standard thinking in many ways
> for a long time, probably created by necessity, back when we had a lot
> less flexible and adaptive technology to work with.
More logical - no argument there. But not more achievable (in the short term).
In our jurisdiction, users typically create PDFs from Word documents by hitting a button. Why? Because they
(a) don't have the proper training, and
(b) don't have the proper software.
We'll do our best to remedy both of these, but it will take time. In the meantime, publishing a Word or RTF equivalent beside the poorly-tagged PDF will (we hope) help a little.
> The option of creating content specifically for the blind also puts
> more work and resources on dedicated personnel that could be used to
> fixing the original accessibility problem, be it on the
> server/authoring side, general education or Assistive Technology bug
> fixes and improvements.
>
I'd argue that it would usually take "more work and resources" to fix the PDF accessibility problem than to publish an equivalent document - poor though it might be.
One thing I'd like to know more about is the extent that older AT software can or can't handle properly-tagged PDF.
I do appreciate the effort that Duff and his colleagues have taken to address the issues raised in the report.
Kerry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Sun, Jan 09 2011 3:21PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Cliff wrote:
>
> Kerry, if the documents you're producing with Acrobat Pro or the Save As
> PDF feature are inaccessible, the Word or RTF files will not be
> substantially better. If the structure is in the Word document, it will
> carry through to a PDF created by those methods. If your authors aren't
> using styles properly in Word, then a screen reader won't be able to
> identify headings in that environment, either.
>
Good points, thank you.
> I hope I don't offend by saying this again, but we've found that along
> with proper training it's necessary to put an interface that supports the
> creation of accessible documents in front of the person using the word
> processor. For Word 2003, I created an Accessibility toolbar. When my
> workplace moved to Word 2007, I worked with our IT staff to create an
> Accessibility tab (it also works in Office 2010).
>
I have been known to be easily offended, but not by useful comments like this. Alas, I have little control over the system configurations of the people involved - but I will add this to the wish list.
>
> If you want, I can send you a zip file containing some instructional
> materials on using these interfaces as well as templates that, if placed
> in the Word startup folder, will make the respective feature available
> whenever you open Word.
>
Thank you. I would appreciate this.
Kerry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Mon, Jan 10 2011 8:06AM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
In Office 2010 you can create your own customized Ribbon. It is found in the
options categories by pressing Alt + F, T in Word, PowerPoint or Excel or
Outlook. I don't use Access but assume it is available there too.
Cheers, Karen
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jan 10 2011 12:09PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
What is the accessibility tab and how did you create it?
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Mon, Jan 10 2011 3:30PM
Subject: Re: Australian Government guidance on PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | No next message
Allen, the Accessibility tab is a tab for the Word ribbon. It displays almost all of the features that are most useful in creating an accessible document. We added a few more features because we had room. These features are in the first two groups on the tab -- in part because that moved the group called "Structure" right where we wanted it: front and center.
The Accessibility tab has these groups:
- File Tools contains New, Send, Open, Print, Save, Save, Save As, and Properties.
- Zoom contains 100%, One Page, Page Width, and Two Pages.
- Structure contains Show All (formatting marks), Document Map, Table of Contents (as in "Insert it here"), and Update Table of Contents
- Styles contains only Styles (the one that opens the Styles task pane, not the one that brings up the floating window). If I had it to do over, I would probably name this "Format" and add the Document Template button. I would also add the Quick Styles Gallery, but apparently that can reside only on the Home tab.
- Adjust Lists contains Demote List (*not* Increase Indent), Promote List (*not* Decrease Indent), and Restart Numbering. If I had it to do over, I would name this "Lists" and add the three buttons for lists now on Word 2007's Home tab.
- Columns, for lack of a better word, includes Columns (the button for creating columns) and Breaks (the button for inserting breaks). If I had it to do over, I might consolidate these with Styles and Document Template in the Format group.
- Tables contains the Table button (how I wish it didn't have "Draw Table" as one option!), Insert Caption (which can be used for anything that will take a caption), and Table Properties
- Links contains Hyperlink, Bookmark, and, out of place but we had no place else to put it, Language.
Following my specs for what should be there -- and limited by Microsoft's restrictions on what we could add (no Quick Styles Gallery, for example) -- our Information Resources staff edited the XML of a Word template to create this tab. (And I might have the way they did their magic wrong. As Karen pointed out, Microsoft relented in Office 2010 and allowed us to modify the ribbon much more easily. If you have 2010, you're in luck, but I understand that ribbons or tabs created in Office 2010 are not compatible with Office 2007.)
If you have Office 2007 -- or if you have Office 2010 and want to get an idea of a way to make the ribbon better support the creation of accessible content -- all you have to do to get the tab is ask for me to e-mail you this template and then create a new document from it. Better yet, put this template in Word's startup folder. That will make the tab available in every Word document you open.
Now, even with a better tool, people still need training -- largely because almost all training out there (notable exceptions provided by some members of this discussion group, but I'll let Karen and Bev toot their own horns) teaches you what happens when you use the buttons Microsoft put in front of you, not the most efficient way to get complete control of the formatting of your document -- which, by the way, also makes the text fully accessible. So there's a lot of retraining needed, and it begins well before saying, "Add alt text to your meaningful images."
If you would like a ZIP file containing the template, shoot me an e-mail.
Cliff
Cliff Tyllick
Usability assessment coordinator
Agency Communications Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
512-239-4516
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> On 1/10/2011 at 1:08 PM, in message < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
What is the accessibility tab and how did you create it?