E-mail List Archives
Thread: Re: PDF Accessibility
Number of posts in this thread: 1 (In chronological order)
From: Jon Abolins
Date: Mon, Dec 02 2002 4:15PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
No previous message | No next message
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 12/02/02 10:21AM >>>
> Where can I locate an example of an accessible PDF document created
> using Acrobat 5.0?
I don't know of a specifically "accessible" PDF document sample but a
place to check is Adobe's Accessibility site at
http://access.adobe.com/
> Also, do PDF documents have any advantages over other formats, like
HTML?
> I am trying to find answers and possible replies to this question,
because I
> expect somebody to say something like "But we need to use PDF
because..."
> I already have heard some of them.--that is the reason I am giving
the
> presentation.
As another person on the list noted, there's no particular
accessibility advantage of PDF over other formats. In fact, it adds an
extra layer to getting to the information for some of the potential
audience. The cited advantages are in areas other than accessibility.
E.g.; faithful resemblance to a print version.
The main arguments for PDF by itself (as opposed to being an equal
alternative to, say, HTML version) I can name off-the-cuff are:
1. If you have to post a document to the Web quickly (within, say, 15
minutes), PDF can be a good choice. But that leads to the question of
the source document format and if that format could be also posted to
the Web along with the PDF to give an alternative.
I have found some documents a bit tedious to HTMLize because of the
document quirks. Regulation texts in Word tend to be bit of headache
because of variations in the writer's Word techniques messing up Word's
save as HTML. (Other people dealing with governmental documents claim no
problem with Word. One's experiences can vary.) So PDF and the Word
formats may be the quickest combo to post to the Web. But it is not a
good accessibility approach.
If anybody argues for the speed and expediency argument for PDF-only
approach, remind them that it is not a good solution in regards to
accessibility. Even for people not using adaptive tools, the PDF format
can cause problems not encountered with HTML. A common one is faulty
browser-PDF reader plug-in setup.
2. If the document is going to be used only to print a printed copy or
for press work, the PDF is an excellent format. Consider the audience
carefully.
3. For some forms, the PDF works to preserve the exact format of the
printed originals. This advantage, however, points to a question about
the way one's organization handles forms. How important is the exact
format? Are there alternative ways of getting information back from the
audience. Can a Web form be used as an alternative?
4, Document security is one feature in PDF that is hard to duplicate in
HTML and many other formats. Digital signatures are possible for HTML
and other formats via tools such as PGP, GNU Privacy Guard, and many
other systems. The prevention of modification, printing, etc. of PDFs is
attractive for certain uses and maybe offsets the accessibility costs.
But the security is not all that tight (I won't go into the details
here) and bring up a tension between using the Web to reach out to
people while trying to strongly restrict the flow of information. If the
information is that sensitive, perhaps other means of conveying it are
better.
Some people will claim that PDF offers navigation, Web links,
JavaScript, forms, etc. capabilities. Eh, doesn't HMTL allow for that?
<g>
Pardon my rambling about the questions. I was just trying to come up
with a set of considerations for the questions asked.
Jon Abolins
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/