E-mail List Archives
Thread: PDF Accessibility
Number of posts in this thread: 56 (In chronological order)
From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 11:42AM
Subject: PDF Accessibility
No previous message | Next message →
Hi All
Is there a checklist that constitutes and Accessible PDF document?
cheers
Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Hull, Larry G. (GSFC-750.0)[GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER]
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 12:00PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Geof,
Bit of a coincidence but I was just looking at the following document that includes a checklist.
http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4
Regards,
Larry
From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 12:06PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Larry
Bonus!! Thanks
cheers
Geof
At 01:58 PM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
>Geof,
>
>Bit of a coincidence but I was just looking at the following
>document that includes a checklist.
>
>http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4
>
>Regards,
>
>Larry
>
>
From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 12:15PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Larry
My screen reader finds this document very inaccessible.
When I first get to the page I get:
SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4
Open parent document
Front cover of SSA Guide to Accessible PDF Documents and Forms
Open parent document
When I clikc the open parent button I get the number 1 and cant get
anywhere else, unless I start hitting tab, I then get some text and
another open parent document and it just goes on from there, what a
mess, very confusing.
I should note until this morning when I updated Adobe Reader all I
got was an empty document warning. This just keeps getting more
confusing the more progress is made.
cheers
Geof
At 01:58 PM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
>Geof,
>
>Bit of a coincidence but I was just looking at the following
>document that includes a checklist.
>
>http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4
>
>Regards,
>
>Larry
>
>
From: Hull, Larry G. (GSFC-750.0)[GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER]
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 12:57PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Geof,
You are correct. I had assumed a PDF document on PDF Accessibility would be assessable. Bad assumption. The document isn't even tagged.
There is an HTML version generated by Google that seems somewhat assessable. There is an in page link to the checklist but I'm not sure the focus changes. When I tab I go back to the beginning of the HTML version of the document. Below is both the long URL to the HTML version and a text copy of the checklist.
The long URL is
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:aoBSkjk_dn4J:www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf+assessible+pdf+checklist&;cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The following is a text copy of the checklist found in the document.
Accessible PDF Checklist
All or most of the responses to these checklist items should be "Yes" or "N/A"(not applicable). If a "No" response is used, the item should be addressed in an alternate fashion which renders the document accessible.
Test Condition Yes/No
1. Bookmarks link to the appropriate destination.
2. Bookmarks are nested properly.
3. Bookmarks are labeled properly.
4. All comments have been deleted.
5. Document language has been defined.
6. Foreign words or phrases have language definitions.
7. Tab order is logical.
8. There are no character mapping problems; or a workaround,
such as alt text or artifacts, has been applied.
9. All elements are contained within the tag tree.
10. Read order is logical.
11. Reflow is logical.
12. Alternate text is used appropriately.
13. Elements which should be ignored by a screen reader have been
marked as artifacts.
14. Empty tags have been deleted.
15. Tables are marked up properly, using TH for column and row headings;
or a workaround, such as descriptive text, has been applied.
16. Hyperlinks are active.
17. Hyperlinks link to the appropriate destination.
18. Hyperlink text is descriptive of its destination.
19. The initial view has been set to open the Bookmarks tab.
20. The user's magnification settings have not been overridden, unless
there is a strong reason to do so.
21. All text is readable in each of Acrobat's high-contrast color combinations.
22. Abbreviations have alternate text applied, if necessary.
23. Information conveyed solely with color is available in another way,
such as alternate text.
24. Adequate structure has been applied to the document.
25. The Accessibility Full Check returns no warnings.
26. A screen reader has been used to validate that the document makes sense
when read aloud.
Larry
From: Steve Green
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 1:12PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 1:21PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Larry
Thanks! There was a learning curve, which I didn't try to pursue
because it was more trouble than I cared to get into, so again I
would have preferred an alternate version.
cheers
Geof
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 1:30PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
This happens more often than you think! It is the same with web design, you
can't assume an adaptive technology web site is accessible or web sites on
accessible web design are accessible. I've found a lot of sites on
accessibility that aren't accessible. It's not just a couple of missed
things, it is not following the information/technology/skills they are
selling.
Cheers, Karen
From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 1:33PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Steve
With JAWS 10 I didn't get any headings, got lists tables and text though.
I found that I had to hit "tab" to open the parent document and links
worked with the usual commands. Not a very good example to convince
me that pdf's are any better, not that it is the document itself that
is the problem, just the creator I'm assuming.
cheers
Geof
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 2:15PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
So, maybe this is a great opportunity to try out the template from
W3C: Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Websites:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/inaccessible
Regards,
Peter
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 21:29, Karlen Communications
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> This happens more often than you think! It is the same with web design, you
> can't assume an adaptive technology web site is accessible or web sites on
> accessible web design are accessible.
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 4:42PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
No, unless I'm looking at a different document, it isn't tagged. Acrobat and Reader will add tags automatically, but they are not permanent and will lack image equivalents and likely have inconsistent semantics.
Steve, what URL are you using that you're seeing a tagged file?
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Dona Patrick
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 7:18PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Andrew,
When I downloaded the file (save file as) onto my computer and opened it
with Acrobat 9 professional it looked like it had tags as well -- not very
useful tags, but tags nonetheless. I went through about 10 pages and tagged
it -- it's pretty straightforward, if I'm doing it correctly.
Here is the link I used:
http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4
I didn't realize that Acrobat and reader added tags automatically but
weren't permanent etc. There is a lot out there about Acrobat that is not
well known. Can you talk more about that, Andrew?
I'm co-presenting a talk about PDFs & accessibility on Saturday and am going
to mention this discussion.
Dona
cedarwaxwing on twitter
http://accessdp.wordpress.org
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> No, unless I'm looking at a different document, it isn't tagged. Acrobat
> and Reader will add tags automatically, but they are not permanent and will
> lack image equivalents and likely have inconsistent semantics.
>
> Steve, what URL are you using that you're seeing a tagged file?
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 8:51PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Dona wrote:
I didn't realize that Acrobat and reader added tags automatically but
weren't permanent etc. There is a lot out there about Acrobat that is not
well known. Can you talk more about that, Andrew?
AWK:
When a user running an assistive technology tool opens a PDF files that lacks tags, Reader will tag it automatically (there are user preferences to allow/disallow/prompt for this). These tags are temporary in that when the file is closed they go away. The autotagging process is the same that occurs when you open a PDF file without tags in Acrobat and select the "add tags" feature, except that the add tags feature is designed to add them permanently since the Acrobat author is able to edit the file.
The heuristic for adding the tags in both cases is not able to add equivalents for images or determine a heading order with complete certainty. It does a good job with the reading order semantics in most cases, but if you have a PDF file with a complex table or columns of text with text boxes interspersed throughout the text I wouldn't be surprised to see tagging issues.
This all comes back to the source file and the data within it. At this point authors have a variety of options for authoring tagged PDF files that are semantically correct, so repair of tagging for PDF files should be less necessary or unnecessary for newly authored PDF files.
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: ckrugman
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:03AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I'm a bit confused as I downloaded this file and JAWS 11 read it without any
difficulty. There were times when tables were read as "Start of Table" and
"End of "Table" but i'm not sure if there was anything in the table as
nothing was read.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dona Patrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
> Andrew,
>
> When I downloaded the file (save file as) onto my computer and opened it
> with Acrobat 9 professional it looked like it had tags as well -- not very
> useful tags, but tags nonetheless. I went through about 10 pages and
> tagged
> it -- it's pretty straightforward, if I'm doing it correctly.
>
> Here is the link I used:
> http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4
>
> I didn't realize that Acrobat and reader added tags automatically but
> weren't permanent etc. There is a lot out there about Acrobat that is not
> well known. Can you talk more about that, Andrew?
>
> I'm co-presenting a talk about PDFs & accessibility on Saturday and am
> going
> to mention this discussion.
>
> Dona
> cedarwaxwing on twitter
> http://accessdp.wordpress.org
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
>
>> No, unless I'm looking at a different document, it isn't tagged. Acrobat
>> and Reader will add tags automatically, but they are not permanent and
>> will
>> lack image equivalents and likely have inconsistent semantics.
>>
>> Steve, what URL are you using that you're seeing a tagged file?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>>
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>
>> Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
>>
>> Adobe Systems
>>
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>>
>>
>
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 5:15AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
If you are using adaptive technology such as a screen reader, Acrobat or
Reader will identify that a document is not tagged when you open it. Acrobat
or Reader will try to create what are like "virtual Tags" in that it is a
tool to try and provide structure where there is none. There are two
problems I find with this: first each time the "virtual Tags" are created
they are not consistent and you may get different results each time you open
the document and second, some people think that because we have this tool
that I think was intended for legacy documents, that they don't have to make
PDF accessible because "Acrobat or Reader will."
BTW if you are using adaptive technology and open a scanned image of a
document you will be notified and asked if you want to perform OCR. Once
that is done, you will get the message asking if you want Acrobat or reader
to infer the reading order from the untagged document. This dialog can be
turned off so if you don't notice it and are using adaptive technology it
might be turned off. You can turn it on again in the Acrobat or reader
Preferences.
Cheers, Karen
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 5:30AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I have to ask who are people making pdf's accessible for? I've been
trying to like them but as far as I am concerned it is hopeless.
I have the latest technology and still I cannot read them any better
than I could with my old technology, I only open them in hopes that
one day I will be able to read them effortlessly but that is just not
happening so I fall back to my usual plan and that is to ask them to
be converted to a more accessible format, so I ask why bother in the
first place, I'm sure I'm not the only one doing this.
We have legislation that gives me this option so perhaps Adobe would
do better to make the conversion process better, you cant force
people to drive cars they dont like so why do it with documentation.
cheers
Geof
At 09:16 PM 1/19/2010, you wrote:
>Andrew,
>
>When I downloaded the file (save file as) onto my computer and opened it
>with Acrobat 9 professional it looked like it had tags as well -- not very
>useful tags, but tags nonetheless. I went through about 10 pages and tagged
>it -- it's pretty straightforward, if I'm doing it correctly.
>
>Here is the link I used:
>http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4
>
>I didn't realize that Acrobat and reader added tags automatically but
>weren't permanent etc. There is a lot out there about Acrobat that is not
>well known. Can you talk more about that, Andrew?
>
>I'm co-presenting a talk about PDFs & accessibility on Saturday and am going
>to mention this discussion.
>
>Dona
>cedarwaxwing on twitter
>http://accessdp.wordpress.org
>
>On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
>
> > No, unless I'm looking at a different document, it isn't tagged. Acrobat
> > and Reader will add tags automatically, but they are not permanent and will
> > lack image equivalents and likely have inconsistent semantics.
> >
> > Steve, what URL are you using that you're seeing a tagged file?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > AWK
> >
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> >
> > Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
> >
> > Adobe Systems
> >
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> >
> >
>
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 6:03AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
My approach as someone who uses a screen reader is that if I don't use it
and provide feedback....like we are doing here...Adobe or other developers
won't know or understand what needs to be fixed or added or repaired to a
document format to make it accessible for everyone.
PDF is not going to go away and any help I can provide in making it more
usable for those of us who encounter it on a daily basis is my goal.
I have books I've written and sell as tagged PDF that worked perfectly in
Acrobat and Reader 7 and 8 but both Window-Eyes and JAWS have problems with
in 9. Adobe knows this but if I hadn't provided them with this type of
feedback they couldn't work on it for the next iteration of their products
or improve the tagging of documents so that it gets to the "just as
accessible as Word" that people ask for and expect. [I know, there are some
horrid Word documents out there but the measure seems to be "as accessible
as Word."]
I am equally frustrated with some of the PDF documents I have to read or
repair. But if we don't provide the feedback on what is and isn't working,
how will the format evolve and how will document designers and authors know
what they need to do to create better documents?
I guess this has just been part of "my workflow" since we've been able to
Tag PDF documents.
I also want to produce my books in an accessible format. DAISY doesn't let
me include complex formatting for content when I am trying to demonstrate
formatting in an Office document. A license to provide full text and audio
DAISY in MP3 format is expensive. A license for synthesized voices for DAISY
to have full text and audio is expensive. Print is too expensive and not
terribly accessible for people using a screen reader. Word does not provide
a secure format to distribute my material. PDF offers me the ability to have
a secure document that is accessible.
I struggle with these issues and try to find the best and most accessible
and secure method of delivering content.
I've been following the eBook evolution with interest but so far none of the
eBook readers are looking at full accessibility of content and device so I
come back to PDF.
So I will help in whatever way I can to improve accessibility to PDF...even
if at times it is painful to try to access.
Cheers, Karen
From: Julie Romanowski
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 6:24AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Creating accessible PDFs is actually rather easy as long as the original
document has been created to be accessible. Unfortunately, for screen
reader users, many people who are creating PDFs don't know how to format
the original documents correctly. Education is key to resolving these
issues. If you encounter inaccessible PDFs, let the document owners
know. Point them to resources that can provide assistance, such as Adobe
and Microsoft. Speaking from my experience, most people want to do
what's right and are happy to fix their inaccessible documents if
they're shown how. Don't just tell them there's a problem. Offer to help
them find a solution.
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 6:27AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Granted but people like me are so frustrated we dont bother to read
them, if pdf accessibility is like web accessibility then I'll
probably be dead before developers, City Clerks etc make them accessible.
If I'm running a business then I'll go the least expensive route and
that is creating an alternate format rather than trying to find
someone who knows how to make them accessible.
PDF are not secure either, I've had one cracked with software you can
find freely on the net. It was part of an experiment.
cheers
Geof
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 6:36AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Geof,
I do not believe that it is hopeless, but authors are still learning about accessibility and not just for PDF. You don't need to look far to find issues with access to HTML content either, although the proliferation of tools that author acceptably accessible HTML occurred earlier than the proliferation of tools that author acceptably accessible PDF so there is an abundance of PDF documents out there that need work to bring them up to an appropriate level.
I do believe that if the author of the SSA document at http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/ssa/SSA_Guide_to_Accessible_PDF_Documents_and_Forms.pdf#4 simply republished the original word document with the latest version of Acrobat that the document issues that we're seeing would be addressed. Or, the author could modify the rolemap and mark the document as tagged PDF (it has tags but the document flag that says that it is tagged was un-set) and it would be much better. I'll let a contact at the SSA know...
Regarding your comment about making the conversion process better, I believe that we have and will continue to do so. The document in question was published three and a half years ago with older tools and there are improvements since then that would help. There's more to do, and I can assure you that Karen McCall's claim that she tells us about issues is accurate and we value her feedback and encourage others to let us know when you have issues or ideas.
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 6:42AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Sounds easy enough saying to educate them but I tried unsuccessfully
with my City for 3 years before I filed a Human Rights complaint and
even that didn't bother them and all I was asking for was an alternate format.
Small Municipalities dont have the capacity or time to educate a
worker on how to make them accessible, we had to pass a law just to
get them to start making their websites accessible, premises and so
on, pdf accessibility isn't a pressing issue.
Even the Provincial Government doesn't follow its own Laws and
Guidelines when it comes to pdf accessibility.
I understand its not Adobe's fault, all the feedback to them in the
world wont change the minds of those who are at the root of the problem.
cheers
Geof
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 6:48AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Andrew
Unfortunately I have my hands full with educating on web
accessibility and when I have taken the time I get ignored or they
just make excuses and say something like the CNIB says pdf are
accessible and that is a conversation killer.
cheers
Geof
From: Geoff Freed
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 8:12AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
> Unfortunately, for screen reader users, many people who are creating PDFs
> don't know how to format the original documents correctly.
> Education is key to resolving these issues.
I agree- addressing accessibility at the source-document level, when possible, is the best approach. With this in mind, NCAM recently published a set of accessible-multimedia/PDF guidelines on iTunes U:
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/wgbh.org.2010579900
You can download the document directly from http://ncam.wgbh.org/file_download/103 if you don't have access to iTunes. Chapter 5 deals with PDF accessibility and shows how to use OpenOffice to generate accessible PDFs.
These guidelines were published as an accessible PDF; let me know if you have questions about or problems with the document.
Geoff Freed
WGBH/NCAM
WGBH Educational Foundation
http://ncam.wgbh.org
On 1/20/10 8:22 AM, "Julie Romanowski" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
Creating accessible PDFs is actually rather easy as long as the original
document has been created to be accessible. Unfortunately, for screen
reader users, many people who are creating PDFs don't know how to format
the original documents correctly. Education is key to resolving these
issues. If you encounter inaccessible PDFs, let the document owners
know. Point them to resources that can provide assistance, such as Adobe
and Microsoft. Speaking from my experience, most people want to do
what's right and are happy to fix their inaccessible documents if
they're shown how. Don't just tell them there's a problem. Offer to help
them find a solution.
From: Wayne Dick
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 9:12AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
For those who are interested, I have attached my
case that PDF is inaccessible for people with low
vision and not blindness (LVNB). Here is my
overview. You may follow my link for the entire
article. I have screen shots in the linked page
that show that (1) An Edit>Find search for strings
is not supported by Acrobat Reader in reflow mode.
(2) The book mark panel does not pass on user's
system preferences for font size. Both of these
make Acrobat Reader fairly useless for this group.
http://www.csulb.edu/~wed/public/PDF/accessPDF.html
Wayne
From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:15PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Geof,
Perhaps a good starting point is Section 508 1194.22 checkpoints. They all
apply to PDF except for (f) Client-Side Image Maps and (i) Frames.
Cheers,
Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:33PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Monir
Sorry for any confusion, I was looking on behalf of another list I am
on, not for myself.
cheers
Geof
At 04:13 PM 1/20/2010, you wrote:
>Geof,
>
>Perhaps a good starting point is Section 508 1194.22 checkpoints. They all
>apply to PDF except for (f) Client-Side Image Maps and (i) Frames.
>
>Cheers,
>Monir ElRayes
>President
>NetCentric Technologies
>
>
>
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:39PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
What are your thoughts on the new e-book format from Kurzweil for the
KNFB reader?
I believe we have a fundamental conflict with PDF accessibility on two
fronts. One is that the tool has benn marketed, and is seen as an easy
tool to distribute "stuff". Two, doing typesetting to distribute
electronic information used to be considered a specialized skill, but
now we expect document authors to do it as part of normal business.
Writing content and "programming" for accessibility are not the same
skill sets in any way in my view, and asking the general writing author
to do both seems like a very steep uphill battle to me. Aids like
CommonLook and PAW, Microsoft's new accessibility checker, etc, are in
the right direction, and need to be taken further. Getting to the
"spellcheck" point is probably not feasible, but ensuring formats are
able to store sufficient amount of accessibility-related data, and then
finding easy ways to make most of that transparent to content authors is
something that needs to be raised on the authoring tool
developers/vendors priority lists.
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:57PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Allan
That is a great point!!
I am in the process of putting together a quote for a website
redesign for a not for profit organization with a limited budget.
They have 18 pdf documents on it can bet they are not interested in
having them made accessible, just converted into something accessible
like plain text.
The original Author lacked the skills to make them accessible and
just put them up as they are and that is the norm for many
Municipalities and organizations in these parts.
cheers
Geof
From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 3:15PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Geoff,
PDF is a widely used document format and there are good reasons for this.
Obviously making PDF documents accessible "manually" is typically much more
difficult than HTML. Hence the frustration of many with PDF. However, with
the right tools, PDF documents can be made accessible as easily as HTML.
Also keep in mind that the PDF format specification supports all the key
structures required for accessibility. As a result, a properly designed
accessible PDF document is just as accessible as an HTML document and is
typically more accessible than a Word document.
Best Regards,
Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 3:42PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Monir
I can appreciate that, I've come across a few pdf's that were quite
good, but they are very few and far between.
Try explaining that to a first time screen reader user who is
absolutely baffled by their first inaccessible pdf document, they
wont care, nor will a seasoned one like myself who has only ever come
across 1 or 2 in the 7 years I have used a screen reader.
It is far easier and less costly for them to give me a alternate
format than to make it accessible, especially if they are on a low budget.
I'm sorry that's just the way it is down here in the trenches, pdf
accessibility isn't a priority.
cheers
Geof
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 3:57PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi All
As an example of how much our Province even cares about pdf
accessibility go
to http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/eopg/tools/aoda.html and find the
pdf document on Built Environment, it is worse than the one I went to
yesterday and doesn't even perform the same way. The file was posted
on November of last year, is part of the AODA legislation that this
Government enacted.
They have been made aware of this by one of our most vocal Advocacy
groups the AODA Alliance and still they keep posting inaccessible
pdf's with no alternate.
So if anyone wants to educate them then please go ahead and let me
know how it goes. :O)
cheers
Geof
From: ckrugman
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 4:27PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
do you have something in Canada that is equivalent to Section 508 which
addresses the accessibility of government web sites?
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
> Hi All
>
> As an example of how much our Province even cares about pdf
> accessibility go
> to http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/eopg/tools/aoda.html and find the
> pdf document on Built Environment, it is worse than the one I went to
> yesterday and doesn't even perform the same way. The file was posted
> on November of last year, is part of the AODA legislation that this
> Government enacted.
>
> They have been made aware of this by one of our most vocal Advocacy
> groups the AODA Alliance and still they keep posting inaccessible
> pdf's with no alternate.
>
> So if anyone wants to educate them then please go ahead and let me
> know how it goes. :O)
>
> cheers
>
> Geof
>
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Jan 20 2010 4:42PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Chuck
That's just it, our provinces passed the www.aoda.ca , the first
Standard became law Jan 1 of this year and the one covering websites
should be law sometime this year, hopefully.
Right now they are looking at WCAG 2.0 level A as the benchmark, but
the Customer Care one allows me the option of getting documentation
from my Municipality in what ever format I want, guess what format I
wont be asking for. :O)
cheers
Geof
From: ckrugman
Date: Thu, Jan 21 2010 12:36AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
The only problem that I have had with PDF files is when documents are
scanned in to the PDF file as images not using an OCR format. I have more
issues with inaccessible Flash content such as what appears on many of the
Internet survey sites where choices are presented as unlabeled graphics or
drop down menus or check boxes are not labeled with text equivalents.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
> Hi Chuck
>
> That's just it, our provinces passed the www.aoda.ca , the first
> Standard became law Jan 1 of this year and the one covering websites
> should be law sometime this year, hopefully.
>
> Right now they are looking at WCAG 2.0 level A as the benchmark, but
> the Customer Care one allows me the option of getting documentation
> from my Municipality in what ever format I want, guess what format I
> wont be asking for. :O)
>
> cheers
>
> Geof
>
>
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Thu, Jan 21 2010 4:30AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
This is what my work is, doing training on accessible digital documents
including PDF and HTML. Do you have a contact so I can start the process?
I've been looking for the criteria for an AODA compliant PDF all week and
think that because accessibility is in its "infancy" here in Ontario that
they must be as frustrated as you and I and others are.
You can mail me off list.
Cheers, Karen
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Jan 21 2010 5:24AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Our City did that as matter of course, that is why I spent 5 years
going after them until they finally put up alternates on a regular basis.
cheers
Geof
At 02:36 AM 1/21/2010, you wrote:
>The only problem that I have had with PDF files is when documents are
>scanned in to the PDF file as images not using an OCR format. I have more
>issues with inaccessible Flash content such as what appears on many of the
>Internet survey sites where choices are presented as unlabeled graphics or
>drop down menus or check boxes are not labeled with text equivalents.
>Chuck
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>
>
> > Hi Chuck
> >
> > That's just it, our provinces passed the www.aoda.ca , the first
> > Standard became law Jan 1 of this year and the one covering websites
> > should be law sometime this year, hopefully.
> >
> > Right now they are looking at WCAG 2.0 level A as the benchmark, but
> > the Customer Care one allows me the option of getting documentation
> > from my Municipality in what ever format I want, guess what format I
> > wont be asking for. :O)
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Geof
> >
> >
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Jan 21 2010 5:39AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Your guess is as good as mine
cheers
Geof
At 06:30 AM 1/21/2010, you wrote:
>This is what my work is, doing training on accessible digital documents
>including PDF and HTML. Do you have a contact so I can start the process?
>
>I've been looking for the criteria for an AODA compliant PDF all week and
>think that because accessibility is in its "infancy" here in Ontario that
>they must be as frustrated as you and I and others are.
>
>You can mail me off list.
>
>Cheers, Karen
>
>
>
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Feb 11 2010 6:30PM
Subject: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi All
If a pdf has an image imbedded in the background and text on top does
the image need to be described?
Here is the pdf in question.
http://www.torontorehab.com/research/documents/Scholarship-flyer.pdf
Also is this pdf accessible?
cheers
Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 5:36AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
No, this is decorative and should be an Artifact.
Cheers, Karen
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:24AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
So no ltext needed then?
What about its level of accessibility?
I'm hearing the word "graphic" before each item and it appears to be a list.
At 06:36 AM 2/12/2010, you wrote:
>No, this is decorative and should be an Artifact.
>
>Cheers, Karen
>
>
From: Priti Rohra
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:39AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Geof,
Marking the background image of the PDF file in question as an "Artifact" is
similar to specifying an empty alternate text for decorative image on web
page. This will inform the screen reader to skip it and read the textual
information.
With regards to the level of accessibility of the file is concerned, it is
an untagged PDF document--meaning information is not tagged using
appropriate tags, such as headings, lists, paragraphs etc so the screen
reader is identifying the same as a graphic. The screen reader may or may
not read the information correctly i.e. in the right order, as headings, a
list item or even a link.
Hope this makes it clear for you.
Thanks & Regards,
Priti Rohra
Senior Accessibility Consultant
Net Systems Informatics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Web: www.n-syst.com|www.barrierbreak.com
Blog: www.barrierbreak.com/blog
Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This will preserve
trees on our planet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF accessibility
> So no ltext needed then?
>
> What about its level of accessibility?
>
>
> I'm hearing the word "graphic" before each item and it appears to be a
> list.
> At 06:36 AM 2/12/2010, you wrote:
>>No, this is decorative and should be an Artifact.
>>
>>Cheers, Karen
>>
>>
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:48AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Priti
Thanks that helps!!
I'm wondering why it would be decorative, this is what I am told it
is an image of
"Background is a blue brick wall. The picture at the bottom of the page is of
a student's extended hand, with a bit of sleeve showing. Graduation cap is
above, flying through the air.
"
to me that symbolizes graduation and if I were to use it in a web
page i would give it alt text.
cheers
Geof
At 07:39 AM 2/12/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Geof,
>
>Marking the background image of the PDF file in question as an "Artifact" is
>similar to specifying an empty alternate text for decorative image on web
>page. This will inform the screen reader to skip it and read the textual
>information.
>
>With regards to the level of accessibility of the file is concerned, it is
>an untagged PDF document--meaning information is not tagged using
>appropriate tags, such as headings, lists, paragraphs etc so the screen
>reader is identifying the same as a graphic. The screen reader may or may
>not read the information correctly i.e. in the right order, as headings, a
>list item or even a link.
>
>Hope this makes it clear for you.
>
>Thanks & Regards,
>Priti Rohra
>Senior Accessibility Consultant
>Net Systems Informatics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
>Web: www.n-syst.com|www.barrierbreak.com
>Blog: www.barrierbreak.com/blog
>
>Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This will preserve
>trees on our planet.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF accessibility
>
>
> > So no ltext needed then?
> >
> > What about its level of accessibility?
> >
> >
> > I'm hearing the word "graphic" before each item and it appears to be a
> > list.
> > At 06:36 AM 2/12/2010, you wrote:
> >>No, this is decorative and should be an Artifact.
> >>
> >>Cheers, Karen
> >>
> >>
From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:21AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Just to clarify the importance of tagging- it is a necessary condition for
accessibility (i.e. untagged documents are inaccessible as screen readers
use the tags to navigate the structure of the document) but not a sufficient
one (i.e. tagged documents can still be inaccessible if the tagging is not
applied correctly -which is quite common- or if some of the other conditions
for accessibility are not met).
When you use the "Add Tags to Document" command in Acrobat, Acrobat will try
to figure out how to structure the tagging for the document. It often
succeeds with simple (linear text) documents but will typically require
additional work to place the tags correctly for more "complex" documents.
Best Regards,
Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:15AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Monir
Appreciate your feedback, while I wasn't really interested in pdf
accessibility from the design standpoint, it appears that I might not
be able to avoid it given the amount of inaccessible pdf's and our
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) coming into force.
cheers
Geof
At 08:19 AM 2/12/2010, you wrote:
>Just to clarify the importance of tagging- it is a necessary condition for
>accessibility (i.e. untagged documents are inaccessible as screen readers
>use the tags to navigate the structure of the document) but not a sufficient
>one (i.e. tagged documents can still be inaccessible if the tagging is not
>applied correctly -which is quite common- or if some of the other conditions
>for accessibility are not met).
>
>When you use the "Add Tags to Document" command in Acrobat, Acrobat will try
>to figure out how to structure the tagging for the document. It often
>succeeds with simple (linear text) documents but will typically require
>additional work to place the tags correctly for more "complex" documents.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Monir ElRayes
>President
>NetCentric Technologies
>
>
>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:24AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Monir,
To expand on your second paragraph... I generally agree that tagging is a necessary condition for accessibility, but I'd make a small modification to say that for all but the simplest of documents tagging is a necessary condition for accessibility.
Since Reader does do tagging automatically for untagged documents, if you have a very simple document containing just a few paragraphs of plain text (I'm not suggesting that PDF is the best format for this, just that people do this) then the tags that Reader automatically generates will be sufficient. If you have additional structure in the document such as headings, lists, or tables then it is less likely that the tagging heuristic will be sufficient without further author input, and if you have images that need equivalents then you certainly won't get that in the auto-tagging process.
I completely agree that to be certain that authors should provide tagging. I'm raising this point because I often hear people say that without tags a PDF document is completely inaccessible and this is not completely accurate. Few untagged documents will be completely accessible, but similarly few untagged documents will be completely inaccessible. I've seen few cases where an untagged PDF is less accessible to screen reader than a plain text alternative that people often request and usually the PDF offers more access features for screen reader users.
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:45AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
So what is the yardstick for whether or not an image is decorative or
and artifact? Is it the same as in web pages?
In the document I provided I wouldn't consider this image to be
decorative so where is the line drawn?
cheers
Geof
At 10:23 AM 2/12/2010, you wrote:
>Monir,
>To expand on your second paragraph... I generally agree that
>tagging is a necessary condition for accessibility, but I'd make a
>small modification to say that for all but the simplest of documents
>tagging is a necessary condition for accessibility.
>
>Since Reader does do tagging automatically for untagged documents,
>if you have a very simple document containing just a few paragraphs
>of plain text (I'm not suggesting that PDF is the best format for
>this, just that people do this) then the tags that Reader
>automatically generates will be sufficient. If you have additional
>structure in the document such as headings, lists, or tables then it
>is less likely that the tagging heuristic will be sufficient without
>further author input, and if you have images that need equivalents
>then you certainly won't get that in the auto-tagging process.
>
>I completely agree that to be certain that authors should provide
>tagging. I'm raising this point because I often hear people say
>that without tags a PDF document is completely inaccessible and this
>is not completely accurate. Few untagged documents will be
>completely accessible, but similarly few untagged documents will be
>completely inaccessible. I've seen few cases where an untagged PDF
>is less accessible to screen reader than a plain text alternative
>that people often request and usually the PDF offers more access
>features for screen reader users.
>
>Thanks,
>AWK
>
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
>Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
>
>Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
>
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:48AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Geoff wrote:
< I'm hearing the word "graphic" before each item and it appears to be a
list. >
Geoff, there isn't a list in this PDF, but there are words scattered on the
page in a decorative pattern that could be a list if the designer had
created them that way (Engineering, sociology, etc.). This text is all live,
however, rather than graphical.
RE: repeatedly hearing "graphic," I think that might be the Toronto Rehab
logo. I downloaded the PDF, opened it in Acrobat Pro, and took it apart. It
appears that each letter and piece of their logo is a graphic rather than
live text. Counting the letters and pieces, that would make it around 40
so-called graphics.
And of course, there isn't Alt-text on that logo graphic.
Other than the blue-brick background graphic and the logo, everything else
in this PDF is live text.
--Bevi Chagnon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Bevi Chagnon | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | www.PubCom.com
Consultants + Trainers + Designers | for print, web, marketing, Acrobat, &
508
PublishingDC Group Co-Moderator |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PublishingDC
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:51AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Andrew,
I appreciate the elaboration on some of these subtler points. I also totally
agree that a well-structured PDF document is typically significantly more
accessible that a text "equivalent" since PDF can preserve the structure of
the document.
One thing I want to emphasize though regarding tagging is that it is
important that organizations, especially those that have a formal
accessibility policy, develop an accessibility process that produces
consistent results. Such a process would necessarily involve tagging
(preferably by generating a tagged document directly from the authoring
tool) as well as ensuring the tags are applied correctly.
Best Regards,
Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies
From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:57AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I would say it is the same yardstick as in web pages since we are dealing
with the same concept of decorative images in both formats. I think the line
has to be drawn based on whether the image, in the judgement of the
accessibility remediator, provides useful information or is used purely for
decorative purposes.
Best Regards,
Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 10:00AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
One thing I want to emphasize though regarding tagging is that it is
important that organizations, especially those that have a formal
accessibility policy, develop an accessibility process that produces
consistent results. Such a process would necessarily involve tagging
(preferably by generating a tagged document directly from the authoring
tool) as well as ensuring the tags are applied correctly.
No question. It is unrealistic to expect that all authors will understand all of this, so setting tagging as a baseline requirement is appropriate. I made the point as much to communicate that "untagged does not mean completely inaccessible" as anything else.
Thanks,
AWK
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 10:09AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Bevi
So should the graphics be quoted out as in html structure? I really
dont need to hear it repeated over and over.
cheers
Geof
From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 10:12AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Agreed. To expand on a related point, I strongly believe that the right
place to focus accessibility efforts is at the author level. This is where
you can achieve the best results for the resources applied. Also authors are
in the best position to add accessibility related info (e.g. alt text for
images. Proper structuring of tables etc) while the document is being
created. This is what NetCentric is currently focused on.
Monir
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 10:42AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
But the problem with this is that letting Acrobat or Reader create the
virtual Tags becomes a loophole in accessibility.
I would say that any PDF document at this point in time needs to have Tags.
It only takes a minute or less for the simple documents you are talking
about but retains consistency of workflow and addresses the standards. If
you are looking at something like Section 508 or AODA the "standard" is
clear that documents need to be accessible.
Someone/organization can be penalized if Tags don't exist in an environment
where tagging can be done and is done for other documents.
So, the "yardstick" would be to Tag documents no matter how simple or basic
they might be. This avoids confusion about what accessibility is and lets
organizations develop a consistent workflow.
My two cents CAD. Cheers, Karen
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:33AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Geoff asked:
< So what is the yardstick for whether or not an image is decorative or
an artifact? >
Deciding that is like hitting a moving target!
For me, if the graphic helps identify the publication to someone who is
sighted, then it should have a descriptive Alt tag on it for screen reader
users.
Example: If I was in a conversation with another sighted person, I might
refer to this brochure as "the one with the blue brick wall and the
graduation cap on the cover," and that visual description might help my
colleague locate the brochure from a stack on a crowded desk.
If I can imagine that that scenario with a sighted person could take place,
then this graphic should be described to screen reader users, too.
In my 508 classes, I have my students create a hypothetical group of people
talking about their publication. 2 people are sighted, one is blind, and one
is handicapped. Sighted people use a lot of visual shortcuts, such as
calling this brochure "the blue brochure" rather than "the red one," or "the
one with the woman on the cover" rather than the one with the man.
But when we use that language (or fail to Alt-tag significant identifying
graphics), we leave out our blind colleagues. They can't see if it's the
blue brochure unless we've indentified the cover graphic as such.
The photo of the blue brick wall might be decorative, but it's also carrying
significant visual information that is used to identify the publication.
To be an artifact, for me the graphic has to be a totally useless piece of
frou-frou, visual eye-candy, a purely decorative graphic and not useful for
identifying the publication or a section in it.
As a graphic designer, my minimalist design style doesn't use much
frou-frou, so if I put a photo into the document, I want you to see it,
whether you're blind or sighted. Therefore my work isn't going to have as
many artifacts in it as someone else's work.
--Bevi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Bevi Chagnon | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | www.PubCom.com
Consultants + Trainers + Designers | for print, web, marketing, Acrobat, &
508
PublishingDC Group Co-Moderator |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PublishingDC
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:45AM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Bevi
Thanks, I'm with you!!
cheers
Geof
At 12:33 PM 2/12/2010, you wrote:
>Geoff asked:
>< So what is the yardstick for whether or not an image is decorative or
>an artifact? >
>
>Deciding that is like hitting a moving target!
>For me, if the graphic helps identify the publication to someone who is
>sighted, then it should have a descriptive Alt tag on it for screen reader
>users.
>
>Example: If I was in a conversation with another sighted person, I might
>refer to this brochure as "the one with the blue brick wall and the
>graduation cap on the cover," and that visual description might help my
>colleague locate the brochure from a stack on a crowded desk.
>
>If I can imagine that that scenario with a sighted person could take place,
>then this graphic should be described to screen reader users, too.
>
>In my 508 classes, I have my students create a hypothetical group of people
>talking about their publication. 2 people are sighted, one is blind, and one
>is handicapped. Sighted people use a lot of visual shortcuts, such as
>calling this brochure "the blue brochure" rather than "the red one," or "the
>one with the woman on the cover" rather than the one with the man.
>
>But when we use that language (or fail to Alt-tag significant identifying
>graphics), we leave out our blind colleagues. They can't see if it's the
>blue brochure unless we've indentified the cover graphic as such.
>
>The photo of the blue brick wall might be decorative, but it's also carrying
>significant visual information that is used to identify the publication.
>
>To be an artifact, for me the graphic has to be a totally useless piece of
>frou-frou, visual eye-candy, a purely decorative graphic and not useful for
>identifying the publication or a section in it.
>
>As a graphic designer, my minimalist design style doesn't use much
>frou-frou, so if I put a photo into the document, I want you to see it,
>whether you're blind or sighted. Therefore my work isn't going to have as
>many artifacts in it as someone else's work.
>
>--Bevi
>
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . .
>Bevi Chagnon | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | www.PubCom.com
>Consultants + Trainers + Designers | for print, web, marketing, Acrobat, &
>508
>PublishingDC Group Co-Moderator |
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PublishingDC
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. .
>
>
>
>
From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 12:42PM
Subject: Re: PDF accessibility
← Previous message | No next message
Good point. I would add to this that tagging is the acceptable method for
ensuring accessibility. We cannot assume that all PDF readers (e.g. Foxit)
will try to tag the documents before reading it.
Best Regards,
Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies