E-mail List Archives
Thread: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
Number of posts in this thread: 28 (In chronological order)
From: Ilana Gordon
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 9:57AM
Subject: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
No previous message | Next message →
Can the group weigh in on the latest techniques and efficacy regarding
Z-Order and Tag Order having to match and why this would be absolutely
necessary for Accessibility?
I'm having many discussions with government 508 officers going around in
circles regarding this issue.
Any info is appreciated.
Ilana
--
Ilana Gordon
CEO
Word Wizards, Inc
8609 2nd Avenue, Unit 406-B
Silver Spring, MD 20910
*v.*301-986-0808 *fax.*301-986-0809
*Direct: 240-380-2639*
www.wordwizardsinc.com
From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 10:16AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Who is saying it's absolutely necessary? I can see how it might cause accessibility issues when the layout of pages change as they are zoomed, but it's by no means inevitable.
That said, I tend to regard the presence of "z-index" attributes as a warning that there might be other nastiness because it suggests the design is fundamentally flawed. It's the same as when you see positive "tabindex" attributes.
Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd
From: Ilana Gordon
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 10:22AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
I should clarify that this is specifically for PDFs. And some government
employee says it's a requirements.
Ilana
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:17 PM Steve Green < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Who is saying it's absolutely necessary? I can see how it might cause
> accessibility issues when the layout of pages change as they are zoomed,
> but it's by no means inevitable.
>
> That said, I tend to regard the presence of "z-index" attributes as a
> warning that there might be other nastiness because it suggests the design
> is fundamentally flawed. It's the same as when you see positive "tabindex"
> attributes.
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 10:45AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
The reading / tag order must be logical (for PDF files it means that
content is read in logical order, i.e. each paragraph/sentence is
placed in correct context with next and previous, when you have layout
with columns this is important and not a given)).
Typically the easiest way to achieve that is to have it match visual
order, since the visual order is typically the logical one, however
there may be situations where this is not 100% necessary or possible.
On 5/27/20, Ilana Gordon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I should clarify that this is specifically for PDFs. And some government
> employee says it's a requirements.
>
> Ilana
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:17 PM Steve Green
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>> Who is saying it's absolutely necessary? I can see how it might cause
>> accessibility issues when the layout of pages change as they are zoomed,
>> but it's by no means inevitable.
>>
>> That said, I tend to regard the presence of "z-index" attributes as a
>> warning that there might be other nastiness because it suggests the
>> design
>> is fundamentally flawed. It's the same as when you see positive
>> "tabindex"
>> attributes.
>>
>> Steve Green
>> Managing Director
>> Test Partners Ltd
>>
>>
>>
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 10:45AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Are you talking to the agency 508 Coordinator directly, or somebody else?
Does the agency have a checklist?
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ilana Gordon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> I should clarify that this is specifically for PDFs. And some government
> employee says it's a requirements.
>
> Ilana
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:17 PM Steve Green <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Who is saying it's absolutely necessary? I can see how it might cause
> > accessibility issues when the layout of pages change as they are zoomed,
> > but it's by no means inevitable.
> >
> > That said, I tend to regard the presence of "z-index" attributes as a
> > warning that there might be other nastiness because it suggests the
> design
> > is fundamentally flawed. It's the same as when you see positive
> "tabindex"
> > attributes.
> >
> > Steve Green
> > Managing Director
> > Test Partners Ltd
> >
> >
> >
From: Ilana Gordon
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 10:56AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
I wish they had a checklist. They are a moving target and keep asking for
things that seem over the top and in additional to the HHS checklist.
Ilana
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Are you talking to the agency 508 Coordinator directly, or somebody else?
> Does the agency have a checklist?
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ilana Gordon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > I should clarify that this is specifically for PDFs. And some government
> > employee says it's a requirements.
> >
> > Ilana
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:17 PM Steve Green <
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Who is saying it's absolutely necessary? I can see how it might cause
> > > accessibility issues when the layout of pages change as they are
> zoomed,
> > > but it's by no means inevitable.
> > >
> > > That said, I tend to regard the presence of "z-index" attributes as a
> > > warning that there might be other nastiness because it suggests the
> > design
> > > is fundamentally flawed. It's the same as when you see positive
> > "tabindex"
> > > attributes.
> > >
> > > Steve Green
> > > Managing Director
> > > Test Partners Ltd
> > >
> > >
> > >
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 11:14AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
If it is an HHS agency, ask to speak with the 508 Coordinator, or some HHS
agencies have a 508 resource also. Either of those individuals can make a
final decision.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:56 PM Ilana Gordon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> I wish they had a checklist. They are a moving target and keep asking for
> things that seem over the top and in additional to the HHS checklist.
>
> Ilana
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Are you talking to the agency 508 Coordinator directly, or somebody else?
> > Does the agency have a checklist?
> >
> > --
> > Ryan E. Benson
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ilana Gordon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I should clarify that this is specifically for PDFs. And some
> government
> > > employee says it's a requirements.
> > >
> > > Ilana
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:17 PM Steve Green <
> > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who is saying it's absolutely necessary? I can see how it might cause
> > > > accessibility issues when the layout of pages change as they are
> > zoomed,
> > > > but it's by no means inevitable.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I tend to regard the presence of "z-index" attributes as a
> > > > warning that there might be other nastiness because it suggests the
> > > design
> > > > is fundamentally flawed. It's the same as when you see positive
> > > "tabindex"
> > > > attributes.
> > > >
> > > > Steve Green
> > > > Managing Director
> > > > Test Partners Ltd
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
From: chagnon
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 11:34AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
We've written extensively on this, and we guide our clients and students as
follows:
1. The PDF/UA-1 standard requires that ONLY the tag tree be used by
assistive technologies. All information, relationships, tags, reading order,
etc. should be in the tag tree. Therefore, only the tag tree needs to be
compliant.
2. However -- and it's a very critical "however" -- many technologies use
the architectural/construction order (the Z-Order, Order Panel, "blue Z
tool", whatever you want to call it) to "process" the PDF file. Some are
legacy assistive technologies, and others are common tech used by the
general population, such as smart phones and tablets used by students in
academia.
3. Plus, all technologies that read PDFs are affected by the
architectural/construction order in some way. It shows the
foundation-construction of the PDF, like the studs in a building's walls.
Therefore...
It's smart to put the architectural/construction order in "order" because
you'll accommodate the widest audience, regardless of what technology they
use, and regardless of whether it's a valid, PDF/UA-1 compliant processing
technology or not.
But it's not required per PDF/UA-1.
We urge our clients to aim to make the architectural order match, as closely
as possible, the tag tree order so that they coordinate and the document
works for everyone.
Sometimes that's not possible, due to the visual design and construction of
the PDF by the author, or sometimes that would incur an insane amount of
time and money to force it into compliance.
In those situations, get the architectural order into decent shape -- an
example, make sure headings and critical information on the page are in a
logical order, but the graphics and their captions can often fall to the
bottom of the order tree and the PDF will still be readable and
understandable.
Although the Sec. 508 federal regulation only requires PDF/UA-1 compliance
of PDF documents, any government agency, school, or college can mandate that
their PDFs go beyond the PDF/UA-1 standard. That's their right and choice.
I believe that the PDF/UA-1 standard missed the boat on the
architectural/construction order by mandating that only the tag tree provide
accessibility, and not giving any guidance or requirements for the other
reading order.
As a member of the ISO committee that develops the PDF/UA standard, I think
it was a good idea to push the industry to one centralized reading order,
and so the tag tree was chosen as the primary reading order.
But in the real world, there are too many non-compliant or semi-compliant
technologies that choke on PDFs because of bad architectural reading orders.
Just because we say "ABC must be so" in the standard, doesn't guarantee it
will be so in real life.
No one has enforced compliance on the manufacturers of screen readers,
dyslexia software, mobility devices, and other assistive technologies.
No one can prevent someone from using a free PDF viewer on a Kindle, for
example, or use Apple's Preview software on a Mac. We can't regulate WHAT
technology people will use.
In the end, when the user uses XYZ technology, the PDF still has to work.
So make the architectural/construction order work.
Just my 2 cents' worth.
-Bevi
- - -
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 at www.PubCom.com/blog
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 11:58AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
> On May 27, 2020, at 13:34, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> As a member of the ISO committee that develops the PDF/UA standard, I think
> it was a good idea to push the industry to one centralized reading order,
> and so the tag tree was chosen as the primary reading order.
It was not "chosen" - tagged PDF is and has always been the only way to represent the semantics of PDF content to AT.
> But in the real world, there are too many non-compliant or semi-compliant
> technologies that choke on PDFs because of bad architectural reading orders.
> Just because we say "ABC must be so" in the standard, doesn't guarantee it
> will be so in real life.
The same technologies that cannot handle tagged PDF also cannot represent headings, tables, etc to the end user.
The only way to convey semantic structures from a PDF to an AT is tags. This is not to deny that some users benefit from tools that cannot represent correct semantics and logical reading order, but there are very good reasons why aligning content and tags is a "nice to have" and not a requirement.
Duff.
From: Paul Rayius
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 12:36PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Ilana,
There's often a lot of question/ debate about this. When it comes to PDF standards (both ISO 32000 and PDF/UA, as well as WCAG 2.0 and 2.1) they're all quite clear that the reading order in a PDF shall be determined by the order of the tags. (To be more clear, WCAG doesn't specify the reading order "rules" for PDF but does provide some guidance in the WCAG Techniques.)
The confusion comes into play because some assistive technologies don't actually follow the standards and so they'll read content from "other areas" in a PDF - for example from the Content and or "Z-Order" pane in Acrobat. (The "Z-Order" pane is the one labeled "Order" but many people call it the "Z-Order" because of the "Z" in the icon.)
The problem, however, is that as accessible document creators and/or remediators, we can't possibly be called on to remediate according to how a particular processor or AT will handle a PDF. In fact, to that point, one of the great things about WCAG is that it's intended for accessibility while being technology independent. Personally, I think it's time for PDF processors and AT developers to be held accountable and that their products should adhere to the standards that are not only available but also achievable. But, that's my soapbox.
I hope this helps to clarify, though, that the reading order in a PDF is to be determined by the order of the Tags and not the "Z-Order."
Best,
Paul
Paul Rayius
Director of Training
CommonLook
From: L Snider
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 3:12PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
What I have been wondering since Acrobat came out with the Z-Order and Tags
in the dark ages, why the heck are they still separate in 2020? Can someone
enlighten me on why PDFs have to have so many layers, and why they can't be
converted to one layer...so we just remediate one layer? I am getting
increasingly frustrated with tech from the 2000s...
Cheers
Lisa
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:36 PM Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Ilana,
> There's often a lot of question/ debate about this. When it comes to PDF
> standards (both ISO 32000 and PDF/UA, as well as WCAG 2.0 and 2.1) they're
> all quite clear that the reading order in a PDF shall be determined by the
> order of the tags. (To be more clear, WCAG doesn't specify the reading
> order "rules" for PDF but does provide some guidance in the WCAG
> Techniques.)
>
> The confusion comes into play because some assistive technologies don't
> actually follow the standards and so they'll read content from "other
> areas" in a PDF - for example from the Content and or "Z-Order" pane in
> Acrobat. (The "Z-Order" pane is the one labeled "Order" but many people
> call it the "Z-Order" because of the "Z" in the icon.)
>
> The problem, however, is that as accessible document creators and/or
> remediators, we can't possibly be called on to remediate according to how a
> particular processor or AT will handle a PDF. In fact, to that point, one
> of the great things about WCAG is that it's intended for accessibility
> while being technology independent. Personally, I think it's time for PDF
> processors and AT developers to be held accountable and that their products
> should adhere to the standards that are not only available but also
> achievable. But, that's my soapbox.
>
> I hope this helps to clarify, though, that the reading order in a PDF is
> to be determined by the order of the Tags and not the "Z-Order."
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
> Paul Rayius
> Director of Training
> CommonLook
>
>
From: Ilana Gordon
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 3:18PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Agree so completely!
Ilana
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 5:11 PM L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> What I have been wondering since Acrobat came out with the Z-Order and Tags
> in the dark ages, why the heck are they still separate in 2020? Can someone
> enlighten me on why PDFs have to have so many layers, and why they can't be
> converted to one layer...so we just remediate one layer? I am getting
> increasingly frustrated with tech from the 2000s...
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:36 PM Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ilana,
> > There's often a lot of question/ debate about this. When it comes to PDF
> > standards (both ISO 32000 and PDF/UA, as well as WCAG 2.0 and 2.1)
> they're
> > all quite clear that the reading order in a PDF shall be determined by
> the
> > order of the tags. (To be more clear, WCAG doesn't specify the reading
> > order "rules" for PDF but does provide some guidance in the WCAG
> > Techniques.)
> >
> > The confusion comes into play because some assistive technologies don't
> > actually follow the standards and so they'll read content from "other
> > areas" in a PDF - for example from the Content and or "Z-Order" pane in
> > Acrobat. (The "Z-Order" pane is the one labeled "Order" but many people
> > call it the "Z-Order" because of the "Z" in the icon.)
> >
> > The problem, however, is that as accessible document creators and/or
> > remediators, we can't possibly be called on to remediate according to
> how a
> > particular processor or AT will handle a PDF. In fact, to that point,
> one
> > of the great things about WCAG is that it's intended for accessibility
> > while being technology independent. Personally, I think it's time for
> PDF
> > processors and AT developers to be held accountable and that their
> products
> > should adhere to the standards that are not only available but also
> > achievable. But, that's my soapbox.
> >
> > I hope this helps to clarify, though, that the reading order in a PDF is
> > to be determined by the order of the Tags and not the "Z-Order."
> >
> > Best,
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rayius
> > Director of Training
> > CommonLook
> >
> >
From: Vaughn, Michael
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 3:21PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Paul,
One of the assistive technologies that relies on the Content order rather than the tags is the PDF reader in Read&Write from TextHelp, which is a popular tool used in education settings.
I'm a CommonLook customer, and I wonder if that tool includes any feature to correct the Content order to match the tag order?
Thanks
_____
Michael Vaughn (he/him/his)
Associate Director of Digital Accessibility
Yale University, Information Technology Services
25 Science Park, 542 | 203.432.9620
accessibility.yale.edu <http://accessibility.yale.edu/>;
On 5/27/20, 2:36 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Paul Rayius" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
Hi Ilana,
There's often a lot of question/ debate about this. When it comes to PDF standards (both ISO 32000 and PDF/UA, as well as WCAG 2.0 and 2.1) they're all quite clear that the reading order in a PDF shall be determined by the order of the tags. (To be more clear, WCAG doesn't specify the reading order "rules" for PDF but does provide some guidance in the WCAG Techniques.)
The confusion comes into play because some assistive technologies don't actually follow the standards and so they'll read content from "other areas" in a PDF - for example from the Content and or "Z-Order" pane in Acrobat. (The "Z-Order" pane is the one labeled "Order" but many people call it the "Z-Order" because of the "Z" in the icon.)
The problem, however, is that as accessible document creators and/or remediators, we can't possibly be called on to remediate according to how a particular processor or AT will handle a PDF. In fact, to that point, one of the great things about WCAG is that it's intended for accessibility while being technology independent. Personally, I think it's time for PDF processors and AT developers to be held accountable and that their products should adhere to the standards that are not only available but also achievable. But, that's my soapbox.
I hope this helps to clarify, though, that the reading order in a PDF is to be determined by the order of the Tags and not the "Z-Order."
Best,
Paul
Paul Rayius
Director of Training
CommonLook
From: Paul Rayius
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 4:30PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
Paul Rayius
Director of Training
CommonLook
From: Paul Rayius
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 4:36PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Michael,
As I just replied to another post on this thread, As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other. (Apparently there are multiple strings going on at the same time!)
Among the benefits of this is that it's possible to add attributes (like Alternative text) and to change the reading order in the Tags without effecting the physical appearance of the document. Meanwhile, moving things around in the Content can (and often does) change how the document looks.
It was a design decision by our developers to make CommonLook so that the Content panel isn't changed when remediating a PDF. In fact, in a (much) older version of CommonLook PDF, we used to have the "merged view" which did change the order of things in the Tags and the Content at the same time but people had to be really careful or else they could change how the document looked visually. We did away with that about 5 years ago.
I hope that explanation helps.
Paul Rayius
Director of Training
CommonLook
From: chagnon
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 4:41PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Quote: " One of the assistive technologies that relies on the Content order rather than the tags is the PDF reader in Read&Write from TextHelp, which is a popular tool used in education settings." /EndQuote
Exactly. It's used from primary ed to post-graduate.
When I've had the chance to talk with these technology manufacturers (not specifically Read and Write, but others), they've said they really don't have the R&D budget to retool their software/hardware to meet the PDF/UA-1 standard. They cater to a small, select market and massive R&D changes would price their product out of that market. Both the companies and the end users would suffer.
A colleague wondered if we have built a system that, although intended to include people, ends up excluding those who can't afford the better, and more expensive technologies that do the job right.
A form of economic discrimination, in a way. Definitely not what was intended.
Just my personal opinion from the inside.
â â â
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
â â â
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting ' training ' development ' design ' sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
â â â
Latest blog-newsletter â Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 4:48PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Lisa,
Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF because the technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes. Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than accessibility, for example, and often requires ordering of content for processing purposes that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed for maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only addressed in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software. Unfortunately it remains the case that...
PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF in many cases. This is simply a business decision.
Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF instead of seeking out and demanding better.
Authors continue to author content without consideration for semantics (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support, complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for Tagged PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
Duff.
> On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
>
> Paul Rayius
> Director of Training
> CommonLook
>
>
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, May 27 2020 8:26PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
> Quote: " One of the assistive technologies that relies on the Content order rather than the tags is the PDF reader in Read&Write from TextHelp, which is a popular tool used in education settings." /EndQuote
>
> Exactly. It's used from primary ed to post-graduate.
>
> When I've had the chance to talk with these technology manufacturers (not specifically Read and Write, but others), they've said they really don't have the R&D budget to retool their software/hardware to meet the PDF/UA-1 standard. They cater to a small, select market and massive R&D changes would price their product out of that market. Both the companies and the end users would suffer.
As stated; it's a business decision. Tagged PDF is not news; it's been around for 20 years.
And more importantly, if a viewer doesn't use tagged PDF then it cannot convey (for example) "info and relationships" between elements of content in the document, but can only guess at the document's structure. No-one would ever consider this as acceptable in a web browser; why it is acceptable in a PDF viewer?
> A colleague wondered if we have built a system that, although intended to include people, ends up excluding those who can't afford the better, and more expensive technologies that do the job right.
PDF is an ISO standardized open technology; Tagged PDF has been around for 20 years. Apple's productivity software makes tagged PDF by default - you can't turn it off. Microsoft's Office 365 makes tagged PDF as as a matter of routine, and has done so for years. Open Office has made tagged PDF for over 10 years and that software is FREE! When do the excuses run out?
> A form of economic discrimination, in a way. Definitely not what was intended.
That's what some people said about WCAG 2.0; "it's so much work to support it". Yep, but if you want to call your website "accessible" there are some things you have to be able to do. Representing the semantics of content is one of them. In PDF, semantics are encoded via tags. No tags, no semantics…. no universal accessibility
Duff.
From: L Snider
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 5:53AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Duff,
Unfortunately I know all about these layers, but there is still no reason.
There is no reason to have multiple layers, what you see should be what you
get...whether you print, tag or whatever...This is partially why, in my
personal opinion, PDFs are still inaccessible. 90% of the ones I have seen
since 2000 are a problem in some way, and most in major ways. Plus tags are
just one aspect of PDFs, people will all sorts of disabilities use PDFs as
you know well.
I gave up on Adobe, they moved forward for a long, long time and the last
10 years they moved backward. Not in InDesign, InDesign is amazing and
kudos to whoever worked on the accessibility aspect of it, now if they
could move back those people to PDF we might get back to where PDF
was...Microsoft has been kicking butt in terms of accessibility the last 5
years, so maybe one day Adobe will follow suit.
I am now trying to find other PDF creation programs and convince them to do
better, may have a shot!
Cheers
Lisa
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
> Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF because the
> technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes.
> Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than accessibility, for
> example, and often requires ordering of content for processing purposes
> that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed for
> maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only addressed
> in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
>
> In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software.
> Unfortunately it remains the case that...
> PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF in
> many cases. This is simply a business decision.
> Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF instead
> of seeking out and demanding better.
> Authors continue to author content without consideration for semantics
> (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
> I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support,
> complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for Tagged
> PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
>
> Duff.
>
> > On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible
> layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
> >
> > Paul Rayius
> > Director of Training
> > CommonLook
> >
> >
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 6:53AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
My comments are prefaced by acknowledging that the majority of document authors still don't know how to or won't create well designed and structured digital content.
However, this week I received my second PDF with the PDF/UA Identifier on it that is not accessible. Headings were not tagged and paragraphs were broken into two paragraph tags whether they were in the middle of the page or at the bottom of one page and continued on the top of another. My previous tagged PDF with the PDF/UA Identifier on it had the entire first page in a list tag with the entire contents of the first page in a list item tag...Headings, paragraphs, lists, images...everything. Additionally this second document with the PDF/UA Identifier on it had empty nested paragraph tags three deep. I didn't think this was "allowed" in PDF or PDF/UA.
NONE of the automated tools caught this including PAC 3. I thought at first that it may be because of the PDF/UA identifier that none of the automated accessibility checkers were finding these problems with the tags. I removed the PDF/UA identifier and ran the automated accessibility checkers again, including PAC 3. All told me that I had an accessible document when I could see that there were some structural/semantic violation in the Tags Tree. So, not the fault of an inexperienced remediator or someone who just runs the automated tools...they were told that the semantics were conforming.
While it is true that document authors play an important role, maybe the most important as they create the digital content, and there are several tools that create tagged PDF, it is becoming more difficult to get clean Tags in PDF documents even if you start with an accessible source document. We are inundated with what I call garbage tags that simply bloat the Tags Tree with endless nested Tags that shouldn't be nested. As with the two previously mentioned documents, they weren't complex, even if I had used the auto tag feature in any of the conversion tools, I should not have the results I had (with the exception of the headings not being tagged, which is why you go down the Tags Tree or use the Order Panel to see what got tagged and what didn't).
I agree with Lisa and others who echo that we have regressed in terms of accessible PDF. We stopped moving toward accessible PDF about five years ago when we started seeing the tagging anomalies that were and aren't easy to remediate.
As I've stated before, either the specs are being misinterpreted by all developers or the specs aren't "right" which is resulting in what we are experiencing as end-users of PDF and remediators of PDF.
To the point of tools not representing the semantic structure, the tools that let those of us with disabilities add what I call "virtual tags" to untagged documents do just this thing...they go through the untagged PDF and guess at what is there then render it to us as they find it...which is often not in a logical reading order and results can vary each time we open the same PDF...but it is a tool that bridges that gap between tagged and untagged PDF. Not sure if anything has been done to improve its guessing over the past 20 years.
Read Out Loud, when it was added to Acrobat and Reader, was a light version of PDF Aloud...one of the benefits of being around in pre-historic PDF times is having asked about the tool and received that answer as to where it came from. Again, nothing in any of the PDF tools that use this feature has developed this tool past its point of being added.
We reached a crossroads in PDF accessibility about five years ago and unfortunately, based on what most of us are seeing in the conversion and tagging tools, we went down the wrong path. We made a good start but lost our way.
Since it is clear that we have adaptive technology that uses either the Tags Tree or the Reading Order, we need to have communication between those two panels to make sure that the adaptive technologies render the same reading experience no matter which panel they are using...not sure how we do that when we can't get a clean Tags Tree. If we clean up the Tags Tree, would it then clean up the Order Panel information/architectural view of the document? How do we influence the specs to get both working together so we can fix things in one panel and have them accurately reflected in the other??
At this point there are more questions than answers.
Cheers, Karen
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 6:56AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Lisa,
There are no "multiple layers" in the PDF in this sense of the term. There is simply... content and tags.
Content is text, graphics, form fields, annotations, etc.
Tags are semantic structures (H2, P, Table, etc). These are applied to content and are used to describe "info and relationships' as per WCAG SC 1.3.1. Tags are the only means of providing these structures in PDF.
Otherwise I fully agree with you, and am very encouraged to hear that you are working to convince other software developers to improve their support for Tagged PDF.
Duff.
> On May 28, 2020, at 07:53, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Hi Duff,
>
> Unfortunately I know all about these layers, but there is still no reason.
> There is no reason to have multiple layers, what you see should be what you
> get...whether you print, tag or whatever...This is partially why, in my
> personal opinion, PDFs are still inaccessible. 90% of the ones I have seen
> since 2000 are a problem in some way, and most in major ways. Plus tags are
> just one aspect of PDFs, people will all sorts of disabilities use PDFs as
> you know well.
>
> I gave up on Adobe, they moved forward for a long, long time and the last
> 10 years they moved backward. Not in InDesign, InDesign is amazing and
> kudos to whoever worked on the accessibility aspect of it, now if they
> could move back those people to PDF we might get back to where PDF
> was...Microsoft has been kicking butt in terms of accessibility the last 5
> years, so maybe one day Adobe will follow suit.
>
> I am now trying to find other PDF creation programs and convince them to do
> better, may have a shot!
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Hi Lisa,
>>
>> Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF because the
>> technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes.
>> Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than accessibility, for
>> example, and often requires ordering of content for processing purposes
>> that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed for
>> maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only addressed
>> in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
>>
>> In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software.
>> Unfortunately it remains the case that...
>> PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF in
>> many cases. This is simply a business decision.
>> Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF instead
>> of seeking out and demanding better.
>> Authors continue to author content without consideration for semantics
>> (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
>> I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support,
>> complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for Tagged
>> PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
>>
>> Duff.
>>
>>> On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible
>> layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
>>>
>>> Paul Rayius
>>> Director of Training
>>> CommonLook
>>>
>>>
From: Ilana Gordon
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 7:16AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi All,
I knew when I asked about this subject there would be a flurry of
information. Thank you for your insight. Most of what has been said is not
new, i.e., that creating accessible PDFs is subject to the limitations of
software and the way documents are created. That's why it's important for a
group like this to exist. To make matters worse, the people who are
considering the efficacy of accessible documents are using a list of
criteria that are about as much as they know regarding making documents
accessible and not considering the usability outside of a checklist.
Consistently I find myself arguing with government staff who don't even
know what 508 Compliance is. There are arbitrary additions to Agency
checklists made by staff that are 508 police officers who know absolutely
nothing about it other than a document needs to fulfill a checklist. This
is probably true among many software developers as well.
As a remediator I find myself not only remediting 508 compliant documents
but constantly having to educate the very people who are making
uninformative decisions.
Thanks,
Ilana
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:56 AM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
> There are no "multiple layers" in the PDF in this sense of the term. There
> is simply... content and tags.
> Content is text, graphics, form fields, annotations, etc.
> Tags are semantic structures (H2, P, Table, etc). These are applied to
> content and are used to describe "info and relationships' as per WCAG SC
> 1.3.1. Tags are the only means of providing these structures in PDF.
> Otherwise I fully agree with you, and am very encouraged to hear that you
> are working to convince other software developers to improve their support
> for Tagged PDF.
>
> Duff.
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 07:53, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Duff,
> >
> > Unfortunately I know all about these layers, but there is still no
> reason.
> > There is no reason to have multiple layers, what you see should be what
> you
> > get...whether you print, tag or whatever...This is partially why, in my
> > personal opinion, PDFs are still inaccessible. 90% of the ones I have
> seen
> > since 2000 are a problem in some way, and most in major ways. Plus tags
> are
> > just one aspect of PDFs, people will all sorts of disabilities use PDFs
> as
> > you know well.
> >
> > I gave up on Adobe, they moved forward for a long, long time and the last
> > 10 years they moved backward. Not in InDesign, InDesign is amazing and
> > kudos to whoever worked on the accessibility aspect of it, now if they
> > could move back those people to PDF we might get back to where PDF
> > was...Microsoft has been kicking butt in terms of accessibility the last
> 5
> > years, so maybe one day Adobe will follow suit.
> >
> > I am now trying to find other PDF creation programs and convince them to
> do
> > better, may have a shot!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Lisa,
> >>
> >> Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF because
> the
> >> technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes.
> >> Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than accessibility,
> for
> >> example, and often requires ordering of content for processing purposes
> >> that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed for
> >> maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only
> addressed
> >> in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
> >>
> >> In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software.
> >> Unfortunately it remains the case that...
> >> PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF in
> >> many cases. This is simply a business decision.
> >> Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF
> instead
> >> of seeking out and demanding better.
> >> Authors continue to author content without consideration for semantics
> >> (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
> >> I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support,
> >> complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for
> Tagged
> >> PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
> >>
> >> Duff.
> >>
> >>> On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible
> >> layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Rayius
> >>> Director of Training
> >>> CommonLook
> >>>
> >>>
From: L Snider
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 8:33AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Duff,
Yes, it is complex. However, what I would say is that in Word, we don't
need to deal with layers...So what I am saying is why is PDF different? Now
is Word perfect? Nope...but why are we having to spend endless hours trying
to fix PDFs? This is my question, and I am sorry if I went off the original
answer into the weeds, but how many years we will have the same discussion
about PDFs? I wish EPUB had awesome readers, it would change the ballgame
slowly and surely (I know, another story for another thread!).
Cheers
Lisa
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:56 AM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
> There are no "multiple layers" in the PDF in this sense of the term. There
> is simply... content and tags.
> Content is text, graphics, form fields, annotations, etc.
> Tags are semantic structures (H2, P, Table, etc). These are applied to
> content and are used to describe "info and relationships' as per WCAG SC
> 1.3.1. Tags are the only means of providing these structures in PDF.
> Otherwise I fully agree with you, and am very encouraged to hear that you
> are working to convince other software developers to improve their support
> for Tagged PDF.
>
> Duff.
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 07:53, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Duff,
> >
> > Unfortunately I know all about these layers, but there is still no
> reason.
> > There is no reason to have multiple layers, what you see should be what
> you
> > get...whether you print, tag or whatever...This is partially why, in my
> > personal opinion, PDFs are still inaccessible. 90% of the ones I have
> seen
> > since 2000 are a problem in some way, and most in major ways. Plus tags
> are
> > just one aspect of PDFs, people will all sorts of disabilities use PDFs
> as
> > you know well.
> >
> > I gave up on Adobe, they moved forward for a long, long time and the last
> > 10 years they moved backward. Not in InDesign, InDesign is amazing and
> > kudos to whoever worked on the accessibility aspect of it, now if they
> > could move back those people to PDF we might get back to where PDF
> > was...Microsoft has been kicking butt in terms of accessibility the last
> 5
> > years, so maybe one day Adobe will follow suit.
> >
> > I am now trying to find other PDF creation programs and convince them to
> do
> > better, may have a shot!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Lisa,
> >>
> >> Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF because
> the
> >> technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes.
> >> Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than accessibility,
> for
> >> example, and often requires ordering of content for processing purposes
> >> that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed for
> >> maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only
> addressed
> >> in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
> >>
> >> In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software.
> >> Unfortunately it remains the case that...
> >> PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF in
> >> many cases. This is simply a business decision.
> >> Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF
> instead
> >> of seeking out and demanding better.
> >> Authors continue to author content without consideration for semantics
> >> (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
> >> I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support,
> >> complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for
> Tagged
> >> PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
> >>
> >> Duff.
> >>
> >>> On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible
> >> layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Rayius
> >>> Director of Training
> >>> CommonLook
> >>>
> >>>
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 9:28AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi
I mentioned this before, but who exactly are you speaking with? Have you
asked to talk to either of the agency 508 Coordinator or their staff?
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:17 AM Ilana Gordon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I knew when I asked about this subject there would be a flurry of
> information. Thank you for your insight. Most of what has been said is not
> new, i.e., that creating accessible PDFs is subject to the limitations of
> software and the way documents are created. That's why it's important for a
> group like this to exist. To make matters worse, the people who are
> considering the efficacy of accessible documents are using a list of
> criteria that are about as much as they know regarding making documents
> accessible and not considering the usability outside of a checklist.
>
> Consistently I find myself arguing with government staff who don't even
> know what 508 Compliance is. There are arbitrary additions to Agency
> checklists made by staff that are 508 police officers who know absolutely
> nothing about it other than a document needs to fulfill a checklist. This
> is probably true among many software developers as well.
>
> As a remediator I find myself not only remediting 508 compliant documents
> but constantly having to educate the very people who are making
> uninformative decisions.
>
> Thanks,
> Ilana
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:56 AM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lisa,
> >
> > There are no "multiple layers" in the PDF in this sense of the term.
> There
> > is simply... content and tags.
> > Content is text, graphics, form fields, annotations, etc.
> > Tags are semantic structures (H2, P, Table, etc). These are applied to
> > content and are used to describe "info and relationships' as per WCAG SC
> > 1.3.1. Tags are the only means of providing these structures in PDF.
> > Otherwise I fully agree with you, and am very encouraged to hear that you
> > are working to convince other software developers to improve their
> support
> > for Tagged PDF.
> >
> > Duff.
> >
> > > On May 28, 2020, at 07:53, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Duff,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I know all about these layers, but there is still no
> > reason.
> > > There is no reason to have multiple layers, what you see should be what
> > you
> > > get...whether you print, tag or whatever...This is partially why, in my
> > > personal opinion, PDFs are still inaccessible. 90% of the ones I have
> > seen
> > > since 2000 are a problem in some way, and most in major ways. Plus tags
> > are
> > > just one aspect of PDFs, people will all sorts of disabilities use PDFs
> > as
> > > you know well.
> > >
> > > I gave up on Adobe, they moved forward for a long, long time and the
> last
> > > 10 years they moved backward. Not in InDesign, InDesign is amazing and
> > > kudos to whoever worked on the accessibility aspect of it, now if they
> > > could move back those people to PDF we might get back to where PDF
> > > was...Microsoft has been kicking butt in terms of accessibility the
> last
> > 5
> > > years, so maybe one day Adobe will follow suit.
> > >
> > > I am now trying to find other PDF creation programs and convince them
> to
> > do
> > > better, may have a shot!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Lisa,
> > >>
> > >> Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF because
> > the
> > >> technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes.
> > >> Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than accessibility,
> > for
> > >> example, and often requires ordering of content for processing
> purposes
> > >> that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed
> for
> > >> maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only
> > addressed
> > >> in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
> > >>
> > >> In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software.
> > >> Unfortunately it remains the case that...
> > >> PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF in
> > >> many cases. This is simply a business decision.
> > >> Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF
> > instead
> > >> of seeking out and demanding better.
> > >> Authors continue to author content without consideration for semantics
> > >> (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
> > >> I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support,
> > >> complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for
> > Tagged
> > >> PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
> > >>
> > >> Duff.
> > >>
> > >>> On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible
> > >> layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
> > >>>
> > >>> Paul Rayius
> > >>> Director of Training
> > >>> CommonLook
> > >>>
> > >>>
From: Ilana Gordon
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 10:00AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Oh yes. I often speak to the 508 coordinators but in this particular case
there must be a new team since remote working has come into play and there
are all kinds of additional "accessibility" items they are adding. I've
gone through this before but now the issue is making the z-order and tag
order a requirement. Ughhh!
Thanks,
Ilana
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:28 AM Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Hi
> I mentioned this before, but who exactly are you speaking with? Have you
> asked to talk to either of the agency 508 Coordinator or their staff?
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:17 AM Ilana Gordon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I knew when I asked about this subject there would be a flurry of
> > information. Thank you for your insight. Most of what has been said is
> not
> > new, i.e., that creating accessible PDFs is subject to the limitations of
> > software and the way documents are created. That's why it's important
> for a
> > group like this to exist. To make matters worse, the people who are
> > considering the efficacy of accessible documents are using a list of
> > criteria that are about as much as they know regarding making documents
> > accessible and not considering the usability outside of a checklist.
> >
> > Consistently I find myself arguing with government staff who don't even
> > know what 508 Compliance is. There are arbitrary additions to Agency
> > checklists made by staff that are 508 police officers who know absolutely
> > nothing about it other than a document needs to fulfill a checklist. This
> > is probably true among many software developers as well.
> >
> > As a remediator I find myself not only remediting 508 compliant documents
> > but constantly having to educate the very people who are making
> > uninformative decisions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ilana
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:56 AM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lisa,
> > >
> > > There are no "multiple layers" in the PDF in this sense of the term.
> > There
> > > is simply... content and tags.
> > > Content is text, graphics, form fields, annotations, etc.
> > > Tags are semantic structures (H2, P, Table, etc). These are applied to
> > > content and are used to describe "info and relationships' as per WCAG
> SC
> > > 1.3.1. Tags are the only means of providing these structures in PDF.
> > > Otherwise I fully agree with you, and am very encouraged to hear that
> you
> > > are working to convince other software developers to improve their
> > support
> > > for Tagged PDF.
> > >
> > > Duff.
> > >
> > > > On May 28, 2020, at 07:53, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Duff,
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately I know all about these layers, but there is still no
> > > reason.
> > > > There is no reason to have multiple layers, what you see should be
> what
> > > you
> > > > get...whether you print, tag or whatever...This is partially why, in
> my
> > > > personal opinion, PDFs are still inaccessible. 90% of the ones I have
> > > seen
> > > > since 2000 are a problem in some way, and most in major ways. Plus
> tags
> > > are
> > > > just one aspect of PDFs, people will all sorts of disabilities use
> PDFs
> > > as
> > > > you know well.
> > > >
> > > > I gave up on Adobe, they moved forward for a long, long time and the
> > last
> > > > 10 years they moved backward. Not in InDesign, InDesign is amazing
> and
> > > > kudos to whoever worked on the accessibility aspect of it, now if
> they
> > > > could move back those people to PDF we might get back to where PDF
> > > > was...Microsoft has been kicking butt in terms of accessibility the
> > last
> > > 5
> > > > years, so maybe one day Adobe will follow suit.
> > > >
> > > > I am now trying to find other PDF creation programs and convince them
> > to
> > > do
> > > > better, may have a shot!
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Lisa,
> > > >>
> > > >> Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF
> because
> > > the
> > > >> technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes.
> > > >> Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than
> accessibility,
> > > for
> > > >> example, and often requires ordering of content for processing
> > purposes
> > > >> that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed
> > for
> > > >> maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only
> > > addressed
> > > >> in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
> > > >>
> > > >> In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software.
> > > >> Unfortunately it remains the case that...
> > > >> PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF
> in
> > > >> many cases. This is simply a business decision.
> > > >> Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF
> > > instead
> > > >> of seeking out and demanding better.
> > > >> Authors continue to author content without consideration for
> semantics
> > > >> (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
> > > >> I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support,
> > > >> complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for
> > > Tagged
> > > >> PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
> > > >>
> > > >> Duff.
> > > >>
> > > >>> On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible
> > > >> layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Paul Rayius
> > > >>> Director of Training
> > > >>> CommonLook
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 11:57AM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Lisa,
> Yes, it is complex. However, what I would say is that in Word, we don't
> need to deal with layers...So what I am saying is why is PDF different?
PDF is different because PDF can handle many layouts and types of content that Word cannot, for example, as generated by InDesign, or CAD software, or scanners, etc, etc. PDF can even accommodate documents created from multiple source technologies (Word + Excel + scan, etc).
This flexibility is unique to PDF and key to the technology's value proposition.
The original design for PDF ensured accurate reproduction of the author's visual intent irrespective of platform or operating system. The feature of PDF that supports accessibility - Tagged PDF - was added seven years later, in 2000.
> Now
> is Word perfect? Nope...but why are we having to spend endless hours trying
> to fix PDFs?
In my view, three principal reasons for that:
- Most authors don't use best practices in authoring documents (i.e., with a view towards accessibility).
- The PDF creation software users choose doesn't always create tagged PDF
- Word-processing and other creation software doesn't do much to help users do a good job of authoring for accessibility
> This is my question, and I am sorry if I went off the original
> answer into the weeds, but how many years we will have the same discussion
> about PDFs?
My view:
- We have to help authors use styles, relevent structures, create reasonable tables, use headings properly, etc, etc.
- We have to insist on software that supports tagged PDF, and is (ideally) PDF/UA-aware
> I wish EPUB had awesome readers, it would change the ballgame
> slowly and surely (I know, another story for another thread!).
It would be great. Sadly EPUB, although fantastic technology, doesn't approach the practical utility or flexibility of PDF.
Duff.
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:56 AM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Hi Lisa,
>>
>> There are no "multiple layers" in the PDF in this sense of the term. There
>> is simply... content and tags.
>> Content is text, graphics, form fields, annotations, etc.
>> Tags are semantic structures (H2, P, Table, etc). These are applied to
>> content and are used to describe "info and relationships' as per WCAG SC
>> 1.3.1. Tags are the only means of providing these structures in PDF.
>> Otherwise I fully agree with you, and am very encouraged to hear that you
>> are working to convince other software developers to improve their support
>> for Tagged PDF.
>>
>> Duff.
>>
>>> On May 28, 2020, at 07:53, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Duff,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I know all about these layers, but there is still no
>> reason.
>>> There is no reason to have multiple layers, what you see should be what
>> you
>>> get...whether you print, tag or whatever...This is partially why, in my
>>> personal opinion, PDFs are still inaccessible. 90% of the ones I have
>> seen
>>> since 2000 are a problem in some way, and most in major ways. Plus tags
>> are
>>> just one aspect of PDFs, people will all sorts of disabilities use PDFs
>> as
>>> you know well.
>>>
>>> I gave up on Adobe, they moved forward for a long, long time and the last
>>> 10 years they moved backward. Not in InDesign, InDesign is amazing and
>>> kudos to whoever worked on the accessibility aspect of it, now if they
>>> could move back those people to PDF we might get back to where PDF
>>> was...Microsoft has been kicking butt in terms of accessibility the last
>> 5
>>> years, so maybe one day Adobe will follow suit.
>>>
>>> I am now trying to find other PDF creation programs and convince them to
>> do
>>> better, may have a shot!
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:48 PM Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Lisa,
>>>>
>>>> Content order and logical reading order are "separate" in PDF because
>> the
>>>> technology is obliged to represent content for different purposes.
>>>> Rendering (e.g., printing) is a different purpose than accessibility,
>> for
>>>> example, and often requires ordering of content for processing purposes
>>>> that differs from logical reading order. PDF was originally designed for
>>>> maximum fidelity in print. Accessibility considerations were only
>> addressed
>>>> in 2000 with the addition of the Tagged PDF feature to the format.
>>>>
>>>> In 2020 the difficulty is not in the format but in the software.
>>>> Unfortunately it remains the case that...
>>>> PDF viewer developers don't do a great job of supporting tagged PDF in
>>>> many cases. This is simply a business decision.
>>>> Users continue to use software that doesn't understand tagged PDF
>> instead
>>>> of seeking out and demanding better.
>>>> Authors continue to author content without consideration for semantics
>>>> (e.g., use tab stops instead of table structures, etc.)
>>>> I'll beat my usual drum once again: if you want better PDF support,
>>>> complain to those who make your software. Demand better support for
>> Tagged
>>>> PDF. In 2020 there's simply no excuse.
>>>>
>>>> Duff.
>>>>
>>>>> On May 27, 2020, at 18:30, Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As per ISO 32000, one of the intents of PDF is that the "accessible
>>>> layer" and the visual layer are independent of each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Rayius
>>>>> Director of Training
>>>>> CommonLook
>>>>>
>>>>>
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 12:27PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | Next message →
> My comments are prefaced by acknowledging that the majority of document authors still don't know how to or won't create well designed and structured digital content.
Acknowledged! :-)
> However, this week I received my second PDF with the PDF/UA Identifier on it that is not accessible. Headings were not tagged and paragraphs were broken into two paragraph tags whether they were in the middle of the page or at the bottom of one page and continued on the top of another. My previous tagged PDF with the PDF/UA Identifier on it had the entire first page in a list tag with the entire contents of the first page in a list item tag...Headings, paragraphs, lists, images...everything. Additionally this second document with the PDF/UA Identifier on it had empty nested paragraph tags three deep. I didn't think this was "allowed" in PDF or PDF/UA.
Of course it's not allowed. The document clearly fails, and is non-conforming. A good start would be to hold whoever applied the PDF/UA flag accountable for that decision.
…and that's really the purpose of the PDF/UA flag. It cannot itself assure compliance - anyone can add a mere flag. The flag represents an affirmative claim of conformance; it's an accountability device, not an accessibility one.
> NONE of the automated tools caught this including PAC 3. I thought at first that it may be because of the PDF/UA identifier that none of the automated accessibility checkers were finding these problems with the tags. I removed the PDF/UA identifier and ran the automated accessibility checkers again, including PAC 3. All told me that I had an accessible document when I could see that there were some structural/semantic violation in the Tags Tree. So, not the fault of an inexperienced remediator or someone who just runs the automated tools...they were told that the semantics were conforming.
These tools generally advise that the validation of the semantics (correct application of tags to content) is a so-called "human check" - up to the user of the validation software to evaluate. The job of a validation tool is to help the user perform this check… not to make it on their behalf.
> While it is true that document authors play an important role, maybe the most important as they create the digital content, and there are several tools that create tagged PDF, it is becoming more difficult to get clean Tags in PDF documents even if you start with an accessible source document. We are inundated with what I call garbage tags that simply bloat the Tags Tree with endless nested Tags that shouldn't be nested. As with the two previously mentioned documents, they weren't complex, even if I had used the auto tag feature in any of the conversion tools, I should not have the results I had (with the exception of the headings not being tagged, which is why you go down the Tags Tree or use the Order Panel to see what got tagged and what didn't).
This is very valuable input for PDF creation software developers.
> Since it is clear that we have adaptive technology that uses either the Tags Tree or the Reading Order, we need to have communication between those two panels to make sure that the adaptive technologies render the same reading experience no matter which panel they are using...not sure how we do that when we can't get a clean Tags Tree.
That "communication" is… Tagged PDF. As I've said earlier in this thread, the Reading Order cannot support semantics, and so its output cannot ever conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A!
Instead, developers need to simply support Tagged PDF.
> If we clean up the Tags Tree, would it then clean up the Order Panel information/architectural view of the document?
It's a fine idea for a feature-request. There would be some familiar complexities, e.g. from objects that mask each other, but the software could also ask for the user's help in resolving such issues, so I think it's a very fair thing to ask for.
> How do we influence the specs to get both working together so we can fix things in one panel and have them accurately reflected in the other??
The ISO committee looked at requiring alignment of the tags and content order years ago and concluded it wasn't possible in a wide variety of very common use cases (e.g. paragraphs that span pages) and therefore not viable as a PDF/UA requirement.
Duff.
>
From: Christine Hogenkamp
Date: Thu, May 28 2020 1:39PM
Subject: Re: Z-Order and Tag Order Need to Match?
← Previous message | No next message
Hi all,
I have been reading the replies with great interest, it was only once I got
into making accessible PDFs that I really thought about all the different
programs used to make PDFs and how they might do it differently and how
that affects accessibility.
My little tidbits so far as someone using inDesign and Acrobat to make PDFs:
- There is definitely a lack of streamlined, clear information about making
accessible PDFs in inDesign. Oh there are plenty of pages floating around
on the subject on Adobe sites, but they are in different locations that
come up with different keyword searches, of varying ages and different
instructions, some meant for older versions of CC. It has taken my team a
good number of months to create our own documentation on best practices for
accessible pdfs and even then, there are probably discrepancies between our
steps and whatever we are officially meant to be doing, because our
experiences creating PDFs are unique to us, and also have to match up with
our current in-house design practices. There has been a great deal of
trial and error, and we have a fairly lengthy troubleshooting section to
our doc, to try to fix particular errors that come up in the Acrobat
accessibility checker.
- using NVDA to test PDFs was actually extremely helpful, before using NVDA
we thought that since the Reading Order panel was showing the correct
logical reading order, then the PDF was good to go. It has also helped
demonstrate when elements are not set correctly in less obvious ways or you
would assume would be automatically set correctly. The most recent example
of this was setting alt text on a Table of Contents link to another page.
You would assume turning the existing live text into a link and setting
that link to Page X is sufficient, as setting alt text for text is not
intuitive and seems redundant even though the option is clearly present in
the link options in the InDesign Links panel. But it definitely was
necessary, otherwise the link was read out as "Blank" in NVDA.
- I have made some basic inquiries with different literary assistance
software companies to ask them which elements they use to determine reading
order in a document. Some use the tag tree, some use the Reading Order
panel, and one in particular told me their software took a greyscale
snapshot of the whole page and then used OCR software to convert it into
text (why do they do this when live text already exists was not explained
LOL) so I agree that it would be nearly impossible to create a PDF that was
useable by all assistive tech programs. It would be nice if we could all
agree on the Tag Tree to determine the logical reading order, but the
history of computer related software development is not encouraging on the
"herding cats" front of things. Could we even agree here on this mailing
list that the tag tree is the best method? Ha ha!
- The issue with these automatic checkers, be it Acrobat or PAC, has always
been the tendency for false positives and how difficult it can be to find
solutions for the errors. Acrobat at least tries to give you a link with a
possible solution but I have yet to discover any sort of official resource
for PAC errors to clearly explain what needs to be done, which can make it
difficult to consider PAC a useful tool.
Ultimately, until the original authors of these programs, both Adobe and
whoever made PAC, improve the documentation surrounding their programs, I
would expect PDFs to continue to be made incorrectly. How can the average
user do any better than the program does by default? How could they be
expected to even know let alone understand what is wrong with their PDFs?
Thanks for all the food for thought :)
*===*
*Christine Hogenkamp*
Front-end Developer
CONTEXT CREATIVE
317 ADELAIDE ST. W., #500 | TORONTO, ON CANADA | M5V 1P9
<https://maps.google.com/?q=317+ADELAIDE+ST.+W.,+%23500%C2%A0+%7C%C2%A0+TORONTO,+ON+CANADA%C2%A0+%7C%C2%A0+M5V+1P9&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>