WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)

for

Number of posts in this thread: 17 (In chronological order)

From: Michael.Moore@dars.state.tx.us
Date: Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:21PM
Subject: More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)
No previous message | Next message →

Hi Karen,

While we have you on the line I have a question about content visually disappearing when moving items in the order panel to fix reading order issues. We saw this on a document that was created in InDesign. The person who brought the document to us reported that they frequently encounter this issue when working with PDFs created with InDesign and with Quark (sp?). Have you seen this? And do you know how to work around this problem?

Mike Moore

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:27PM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

You will need to educate the author that those days are behind us. In the digital world there is no longer the author's option of having things look the way they want and have it remain that way.

It is a hard reality for some people.

John E. Brandt
jebswebs.com
Augusta, ME USA
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.jebswebs.com


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karlen Communications
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:11 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

It's not always that easy. If the client wants the document "not to change" one hair, there are structural elements that would best be implemented in the PDF Tags Tree. It is a balance of cost: which is going to take the most time and resources and is this Word document a template to be used again or a one-off. I've worked on Word documents, repaired them, given the client instructions on how to not break the structure and have to do the same repairs for the next iteration of the document because of a new hire, new document author, and the list goes on.

It's sometimes just faster and more efficient to make the changes to the Tags Tree in the PDF document.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Farough
Sent: July-27-10 2:26 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

I think that the easiest way to deal with this would be to modify the physical structure of the source document and then convert to PDF afterwards.
You could spend a lot of time modifying the tags tree and still have problems. On the webaim site, there is an article which discusses the problems that Jaws has in determining whether a table is for layout or data purposes.
Check out the post from the blog for December 2 entitled "Jaws Ate My Tables"
http://webaim.org/blog/page/3/




David Farough
Application Accessibility Coordinator/coordonateur de l'accessibilité Information Technology Services Directorate / Direction des services d'information technologiques Public Service Commission / Commission de la fonction publique Email / Courriel: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Tel. / Tél: (613) 992-2779

>>> "Langum, Michael J" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 12:08 PM Tuesday, July
27, 2010 >>>
Does the use of table structures for layout trouble screen reader users?

We have an author who is really fond of using layout tables to provide a visual structure to her documents. She writes in Word, and then we convert to PDF for publication on our website. I have attached an extracted sample page.

I'm seeking advice on the best way to work with the Acrobat tag tree in this document.
Logically, the tags should be : <h1>, <h2>, followed by several <p> and an <L>. Then another <h2>, followed by several <p> and an <l> tags.

But because she used a layout table, these tags end up nested in various table tags.

Should I modify the physical structure to reflect the logical structure of the document? Or leave the various table tags in the document?

-- Mike


>
This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any copies.
>
Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
supprimer le courriel et les copies.

From: Dona Patrick
Date: Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:36PM
Subject: Re: More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)
← Previous message | Next message →

I see this all the time, Mike. Sometimes I can fix the problem by
going into the content panel and moving any background (artifact)
figure above the content that is being hidden. Sometimes, too, if I've
saved regularly, I can make sure it doesn't happen by not moving a
specific item in the order panel, but moving other items instead. For
instance if I have a list in the order panel of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
and I know that if I move 4 to be ahead of 1 the content will be
hidden, I try to move 1 below 4.

I'm planning on doing a visual blog post about it at some time in the
near future, and will let you know when I do. I fear I was not very
clear in my explanation here.

Dona Patrick
http://accessdp.wordpress.com

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
> While we have you on the line I have a question about content visually disappearing when moving items in the order panel to fix reading order issues. We saw this on a document that was created in InDesign. The person who brought the document to us reported that they frequently encounter this issue when working with PDFs created with InDesign and with Quark (sp?). Have you seen this? And do you know how to work around this problem?
>
> Mike Moore
>
>
>

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:54PM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Karlen Communications wrote:

> It's not always that easy. If the client wants the document "not to change"
> one hair, there are structural elements that
> would best be implemented in the PDF Tags Tree.

Karen's absolutely right, and any structural error in PDF creation can be corrected in the tags tree. There's another consideration, however...

> -----Original Message-----
> From David Farough
> Sent: July-27-10 2:26 PM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings
>
> I think that the easiest way to deal with this would be to modify
> the physical structure of the source document and then convert to PDF
> afterwards.

One problem is that some source applications cannot presently create certain logical structures in PDF. For example, MS Word is (currently) incapable of correctly tagging row header cells with <TH>.

In the bigger picture, it's a reality that the source file (however capable) is frequently unavailable to those who have the responsibility of posting a given document for public view.

IMHO (and yes, duh, I'm an interested party), PDFs are interesting from an accessibility standpoint precisely because they provide a pretty keen model for making _any_ document accessible... including documents that started life in all kinds of systems, for all kinds of reasons.

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Jul 27 2010 3:00PM
Subject: Re: More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)
← Previous message | Next message →

Yes and I've seen it in Word documents as well. In desktop publishing
documents that come from InDesign or Quark it is generally due to the number
of layers in the document. This is one of the reasons Adobe recommends only
using the text layer.

This will also happen sometimes when you try to repair the Tags in the Tags
Tree for a multi-layer document.

The remediation is to basically try to rearrange the layers of Phylo pastry
into their correct order. :-) Without causing other layers to disappear.
This gets extremely difficult in a document with more than 4 or 5 layers of
content.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: July-27-10 3:20 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)

Hi Karen,

While we have you on the line I have a question about content visually
disappearing when moving items in the order panel to fix reading order
issues. We saw this on a document that was created in InDesign. The person
who brought the document to us reported that they frequently encounter this
issue when working with PDFs created with InDesign and with Quark (sp?).
Have you seen this? And do you know how to work around this problem?

Mike Moore

From: Michael.Moore@dars.state.tx.us
Date: Tue, Jul 27 2010 3:39PM
Subject: Re: More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)
← Previous message | Next message →

Is it possible to flatten everything to a single layer in InDesign and/or Quark before publishing to PDF? Or would that have the effect of moving text into figure tags?

Mike Moore
(512) 424-4159


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karlen Communications
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:59 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)

Yes and I've seen it in Word documents as well. In desktop publishing
documents that come from InDesign or Quark it is generally due to the number
of layers in the document. This is one of the reasons Adobe recommends only
using the text layer.

This will also happen sometimes when you try to repair the Tags in the Tags
Tree for a multi-layer document.

The remediation is to basically try to rearrange the layers of Phylo pastry
into their correct order. :-) Without causing other layers to disappear.
This gets extremely difficult in a document with more than 4 or 5 layers of
content.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: July-27-10 3:20 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)

Hi Karen,

While we have you on the line I have a question about content visually
disappearing when moving items in the order panel to fix reading order
issues. We saw this on a document that was created in InDesign. The person
who brought the document to us reported that they frequently encounter this
issue when working with PDFs created with InDesign and with Quark (sp?).
Have you seen this? And do you know how to work around this problem?

Mike Moore

From: Simius Puer
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 2:39AM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

Several major problems I can see:

1. You are getting someone unskilled in authoring for the web to create
the content. Content authors either need to be educated in applying
semantic structure to their documents, or the conversion of the material
should be left to someone in the web team.

2. By auto converting from Word to PDF with a source document that has no
accessibility (I'm guessing as tables are used for layout that other
structures are also missing - heading etc) you are ending up with an
inaccessible PDF. The simple rule of rubbish in - rubbish out (talking
about the quality of the mark-up/tagging, not the actual content).

3. Whilst PDFs *can be* a million times more accessible than they used to
be (if created properly), they still don't provide the best medium for
delivering Web content. There are plenty of discussions on that in the
archives of this discussion list...

My suggestion would be to re-consider why you are using PDF to publish what
sounds like Web content (as distinct from a document you simply wish to
share over the Internet) in the first place. Most of the reasons people
give for this are a little misled (I need people to be able to print it
etc...) and other reasons like SEO have not even been considered.

If you have a genuine requiremtn to publish in PDF then to get accessible
PDFs you need to either:

1. educate your content creators into applying semantic markup and also
applying post-conversion QA *and *cleaning up any tag soup/apply missing
mark-up

2. have someone apply mark-up to the document professionally either pre
or post conversion...there are pros and cons to both approaches but both are
pretty labor intensive.

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 4:15AM
Subject: Re: More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Is it possible to flatten everything to a single layer in InDesign
> and/or Quark before publishing to PDF? Or would that have the effect
> of moving text into figure tags?

If you are authoring your PDFs from ID then you should be able to avoid circumstances where touch-up of the PDF tags in Acrobat is necessary (at least with respect to handling graphics).

One of those "avoidance maneuvers" is to flatten graphics prior to PDF creation. Flattened graphics are not susceptible to the z-order errors that are sometimes introduced when unpacking content-streams. WARNING: if these PDFs are intended for a high-end print application, flattening your graphics may not be acceptable.

That said, don't flatten "everything" into a single layer. Just flatten each semantic grouping of multilayered vector graphics; leave text and raster images alone.

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 4:27AM
Subject: Re: More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)
← Previous message | Next message →

You can compress layers in desktop publishing applications however Adobe
reader and Acrobat still see the layers which is why I think the problem
exists. The best solution is the same as in Word or PowerPoint documents:
use good design techniques and the tools in the application to put the
structure into the source document.

For the multilayer documents I've worked with there has been no real reason
for 5 or more layers except that the person who was revising the document
didn't quite understand how to get last year's version updated so added this
year's layer of information to cover last year's. Sound familiar?

I have noticed that the fewer the layers the better the document in terms of
tagging and these types of repairs. I don't see this problem as much in two
layer documents but still recommend using the text layer only as Adobe
recommends.

I try to work with clients as they are getting their publishing houses to
work on the documents and provide the techniques for eliminating this but it
is not always possible.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: July-27-10 5:36 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of
Headings)

Is it possible to flatten everything to a single layer in InDesign and/or
Quark before publishing to PDF? Or would that have the effect of moving text
into figure tags?

Mike Moore
(512) 424-4159


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karlen
Communications
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:59 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of
Headings)

Yes and I've seen it in Word documents as well. In desktop publishing
documents that come from InDesign or Quark it is generally due to the number
of layers in the document. This is one of the reasons Adobe recommends only
using the text layer.

This will also happen sometimes when you try to repair the Tags in the Tags
Tree for a multi-layer document.

The remediation is to basically try to rearrange the layers of Phylo pastry
into their correct order. :-) Without causing other layers to disappear.
This gets extremely difficult in a document with more than 4 or 5 layers of
content.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: July-27-10 3:20 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] More PDF remediation questions (was RE: Use of Headings)

Hi Karen,

While we have you on the line I have a question about content visually
disappearing when moving items in the order panel to fix reading order
issues. We saw this on a document that was created in InDesign. The person
who brought the document to us reported that they frequently encounter this
issue when working with PDFs created with InDesign and with Quark (sp?).
Have you seen this? And do you know how to work around this problem?

Mike Moore

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 4:36AM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

These are interesting points, and I'm happy to provide some additional information.

On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Simius Puer wrote:

> Several major problems I can see:
>
> 1. You are getting someone unskilled in authoring for the web to create
> the content. Content authors either need to be educated in applying
> semantic structure to their documents, or the conversion of the material
> should be left to someone in the web team.

...or the available tools (in the example case, MS Word) simply can't do the right thing by itself, no matter who is using it.

> 2. By auto converting from Word to PDF with a source document that has no
> accessibility (I'm guessing as tables are used for layout that other
> structures are also missing - heading etc) you are ending up with an
> inaccessible PDF. The simple rule of rubbish in - rubbish out (talking
> about the quality of the mark-up/tagging, not the actual content).

No. Tables are used for layout because tables provide end-users with layout capabilities in addition to semantic-structure capabilities.

The problem is simply that software developers have yet to provide conventional facilities to allow users to distinguish layout tables from tabular data when it comes to generating PDF files. It's not hard; it's just not been done yet. (just as Word doesn't yet support table row headers).

> 3. Whilst PDFs *can be* a million times more accessible than they used to
> be (if created properly), they still don't provide the best medium for
> delivering Web content. There are plenty of discussions on that in the
> archives of this discussion list...

I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless absolutely necessary! I'll leave it at these hopefully non-controversial points...

1) There are legitimate reasons to publish in PDF.
2) PDF provides a vehicle for making content from ANY source accessible.
3) The original question had to do with solving an accessibility problem in PDF

Also note that the problem reported is NOT specific to PDF but is in fact the artifact of an authoring tool. As such, the problem also affects Word, HTML, etc.. not just PDF.

> My suggestion would be to re-consider why you are using PDF to publish what
> sounds like Web content (as distinct from a document you simply wish to
> share over the Internet) in the first place.

On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question had to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific" issue.

> Most of the reasons people
> give for this are a little misled (I need people to be able to print it
> etc...) and other reasons like SEO have not even been considered.

I am tempted, but I'm not going there! (on this thread, anyhow)

> If you have a genuine requiremtn to publish in PDF then to get accessible
> PDFs you need to either:
>
> 1. educate your content creators into applying semantic markup and also
> applying post-conversion QA *and *cleaning up any tag soup/apply missing
> mark-up
>
> 2. have someone apply mark-up to the document professionally either pre
> or post conversion...there are pros and cons to both approaches but both are
> pretty labor intensive.

How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would be required for authoring accessible content from any format.

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com

From: Simius Puer
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 6:06AM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

I think we agree on the general principles here but I'm not entirely sure
why my response was dissected quite so thoroughly...

...or the available tools (in the example case, MS Word) simply can't do the
> right thing by itself, no matter who is using it.
>

I agree with you that tools such as MS Word as they do have limitations. In
the real world though, the vast majority of bad mark-up is actually down to
the user not using the tool properly. I've also seen people say "Word can
not do XYZ" when I know full well that it can.

The problem is simply that software developers have yet to provide
> conventional facilities to allow users to distinguish layout tables from
> tabular data when it comes to generating PDF files. It's not hard; it's just
> not been done yet. (just as Word doesn't yet support table row headers).
>

Excellent example illustrating the point above. Actually, it is entirely
possible to give a document layout in Word without resorting to tables. It
might not be easy or intuitive, but it is a capability.

I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
> absolutely necessary!
>

Me neither as I agree there are plenty of them hence I didn't rake them up
again - people can read the archives for that. My point was that most
people are not even aware of the considerations when it comes to format
choice...not everyone is as familiar with the topic and might not know that
debate already exists on this list!

On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question had
> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific" issue.
>

Primarily because this is a forum about web and web accessibility in
general. Then there was the hint: "She writes in Word, and then we convert
to PDF for publication on our website". Sure, the tables are the focus of
the problem, but as any Web professional knows when you look at one problem,
that problem is usually related to a slightly bigger picture.

Now, if you work in a silo and only ever look at the problem in front of you
it might just talk about how to deal with the tables.

However, taking a step back as I did, I simply suggested the originator *may
wish to consider* the format they are using in the first instance. I don't
think this takes such a leap of the imagination, it is not bad advice and I
don't see how putting that under a microscope will add any value to the
thread.

How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would be
> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>

Agreed, it is sound advice for authoring accessible content in any format.
It wasn't specifically intended to be PDF-specific advice but the whole
point of "converting from Word to PDF" certainly puts it in that ballpark.

Again, I'm not sure why this point is being challenged or what value you
trying to add to the thread.


Just for the record I am not anti-PDF (which I get the impression was the
basis for your response) and I rate the file format quite highly - *when
used for legitimate reasons and created correctly*.


...Mike - these references may also be of some use to you in answering your
original question:

- http://webaim.org/techniques/word/
- http://webaim.org/techniques/acrobat/


*Andrew Hart*


On 28 July 2010 11:35, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> These are interesting points, and I'm happy to provide some additional
> information.
>
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Simius Puer wrote:
>
> > Several major problems I can see:
> >
> > 1. You are getting someone unskilled in authoring for the web to create
> > the content. Content authors either need to be educated in applying
> > semantic structure to their documents, or the conversion of the
> material
> > should be left to someone in the web team.
>
> ...or the available tools (in the example case, MS Word) simply can't do
> the right thing by itself, no matter who is using it.
>
> > 2. By auto converting from Word to PDF with a source document that has
> no
> > accessibility (I'm guessing as tables are used for layout that other
> > structures are also missing - heading etc) you are ending up with an
> > inaccessible PDF. The simple rule of rubbish in - rubbish out (talking
> > about the quality of the mark-up/tagging, not the actual content).
>
> No. Tables are used for layout because tables provide end-users with
> layout capabilities in addition to semantic-structure capabilities.
>
> The problem is simply that software developers have yet to provide
> conventional facilities to allow users to distinguish layout tables from
> tabular data when it comes to generating PDF files. It's not hard; it's just
> not been done yet. (just as Word doesn't yet support table row headers).
>
> > 3. Whilst PDFs *can be* a million times more accessible than they used
> to
> > be (if created properly), they still don't provide the best medium for
> > delivering Web content. There are plenty of discussions on that in the
> > archives of this discussion list...
>
> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
> absolutely necessary! I'll leave it at these hopefully non-controversial
> points...
>
> 1) There are legitimate reasons to publish in PDF.
> 2) PDF provides a vehicle for making content from ANY source accessible.
> 3) The original question had to do with solving an accessibility problem
> in PDF
>
> Also note that the problem reported is NOT specific to PDF but is in fact
> the artifact of an authoring tool. As such, the problem also affects Word,
> HTML, etc.. not just PDF.
>
> > My suggestion would be to re-consider why you are using PDF to publish
> what
> > sounds like Web content (as distinct from a document you simply wish to
> > share over the Internet) in the first place.
>
> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question had
> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific" issue.
>
> > Most of the reasons people
> > give for this are a little misled (I need people to be able to print it
> > etc...) and other reasons like SEO have not even been considered.
>
> I am tempted, but I'm not going there! (on this thread, anyhow)
>
> > If you have a genuine requiremtn to publish in PDF then to get accessible
> > PDFs you need to either:
> >
> > 1. educate your content creators into applying semantic markup and also
> > applying post-conversion QA *and *cleaning up any tag soup/apply
> missing
> > mark-up
> >
> > 2. have someone apply mark-up to the document professionally either pre
> > or post conversion...there are pros and cons to both approaches but
> both are
> > pretty labor intensive.
>
> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would be
> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>
> Duff Johnson
> Appligent Document Solutions
> http://www.appligent.com
>

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 7:54AM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Simius Puer wrote:

> I think we agree on the general principles here but I'm not entirely sure
> why my response was dissected quite so thoroughly...

The "dissection"? Because you started with "Several major problems I can see..." in regards what I considered a perfectly reasonable and innocuous piece of situationally-specific advice.

Otherwise, I thought it was good educational fun. Snips for brevity below...

> I agree with you that tools such as MS Word as they do have limitations. In
> the real world though, the vast majority of bad mark-up is actually down to
> the user not using the tool properly. I've also seen people say "Word can
> not do XYZ" when I know full well that it can.

This is undeniably the case.

> Actually, it is entirely
> possible to give a document layout in Word without resorting to tables. It
> might not be easy or intuitive, but it is a capability.

...but as we know, users will use the tool that's more intuitive or otherwise familiar.

If the dang tool was capable of interacting with the user's choices to effectively assist them in validating their intentions, then "table" would simply be a content-handling concept that either may or may not have logical-structure implications when deployed / published / output, etc.

Of course, I'm not sure if the concept of content differentiated from logical structure "computes" in the HTML-centric mind - but we should probably leave that aside for now! :-)

> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary!
>>
>
> Me neither as I agree there are plenty of them hence I didn't rake them up
> again - people can read the archives for that. My point was that most
> people are not even aware of the considerations when it comes to format
> choice...not everyone is as familiar with the topic and might not know that
> debate already exists on this list!

Well, I thought you meant otherwise... asking the questioner to reconsider their delivery AND (potentially) authoring platforms simply because they want to know how to wrangle a "table" struck me as a sort of "passive-aggressive" move in the good old HTNL vs. PDF wars!

I'm glad to hear I was wrong.

> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific" issue.
>>
> Primarily because this is a forum about web and web accessibility in
> general. Then there was the hint: "She writes in Word, and then we convert
> to PDF for publication on our website".

Ah.... and here we skirt dangerously close to the aforementioned wars... because if you're disposed to think that PDF is a perfectly legitimate way to publish on a website for all sorts of valid business reasons, then (a) you don't automatically question the choice, and (b) the focus tends to stay on the problem at hand rather than stepping back to first principles of core technology choices and skill-sets.

> Sure, the tables are the focus of
> the problem, but as any Web professional knows when you look at one problem,
> that problem is usually related to a slightly bigger picture.
>
> Now, if you work in a silo and only ever look at the problem in front of you
> it might just talk about how to deal with the tables.

PDF exists precisely because people don't work in silos.

> However, taking a step back as I did, I simply suggested the originator *may
> wish to consider* the format they are using in the first instance. I don't
> think this takes such a leap of the imagination, it is not bad advice and I
> don't see how putting that under a microscope will add any value to the
> thread.

Ok - no more microscope! ;-)

> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>
> Agreed, it is sound advice for authoring accessible content in any format.
> It wasn't specifically intended to be PDF-specific advice but the whole
> point of "converting from Word to PDF" certainly puts it in that ballpark.
>
> Again, I'm not sure why this point is being challenged or what value you
> trying to add to the thread.

I was simply responding to the "major problems" you introduced.

> Just for the record I am not anti-PDF (which I get the impression was the
> basis for your response) and I rate the file format quite highly - *when
> used for legitimate reasons and created correctly*.

As is probably clear, we would probably disagree on what those legitimate reasons might be... but that's for another thread (maybe in a bar someday).

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com



> On 28 July 2010 11:35, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> These are interesting points, and I'm happy to provide some additional
>> information.
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Simius Puer wrote:
>>
>>> Several major problems I can see:
>>>
>>> 1. You are getting someone unskilled in authoring for the web to create
>>> the content. Content authors either need to be educated in applying
>>> semantic structure to their documents, or the conversion of the
>> material
>>> should be left to someone in the web team.
>>
>> ...or the available tools (in the example case, MS Word) simply can't do
>> the right thing by itself, no matter who is using it.
>>
>>> 2. By auto converting from Word to PDF with a source document that has
>> no
>>> accessibility (I'm guessing as tables are used for layout that other
>>> structures are also missing - heading etc) you are ending up with an
>>> inaccessible PDF. The simple rule of rubbish in - rubbish out (talking
>>> about the quality of the mark-up/tagging, not the actual content).
>>
>> No. Tables are used for layout because tables provide end-users with
>> layout capabilities in addition to semantic-structure capabilities.
>>
>> The problem is simply that software developers have yet to provide
>> conventional facilities to allow users to distinguish layout tables from
>> tabular data when it comes to generating PDF files. It's not hard; it's just
>> not been done yet. (just as Word doesn't yet support table row headers).
>>
>>> 3. Whilst PDFs *can be* a million times more accessible than they used
>> to
>>> be (if created properly), they still don't provide the best medium for
>>> delivering Web content. There are plenty of discussions on that in the
>>> archives of this discussion list...
>>
>> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary! I'll leave it at these hopefully non-controversial
>> points...
>>
>> 1) There are legitimate reasons to publish in PDF.
>> 2) PDF provides a vehicle for making content from ANY source accessible.
>> 3) The original question had to do with solving an accessibility problem
>> in PDF
>>
>> Also note that the problem reported is NOT specific to PDF but is in fact
>> the artifact of an authoring tool. As such, the problem also affects Word,
>> HTML, etc.. not just PDF.
>>
>>> My suggestion would be to re-consider why you are using PDF to publish
>> what
>>> sounds like Web content (as distinct from a document you simply wish to
>>> share over the Internet) in the first place.
>>
>> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific" issue.
>>
>>> Most of the reasons people
>>> give for this are a little misled (I need people to be able to print it
>>> etc...) and other reasons like SEO have not even been considered.
>>
>> I am tempted, but I'm not going there! (on this thread, anyhow)
>>
>>> If you have a genuine requiremtn to publish in PDF then to get accessible
>>> PDFs you need to either:
>>>
>>> 1. educate your content creators into applying semantic markup and also
>>> applying post-conversion QA *and *cleaning up any tag soup/apply
>> missing
>>> mark-up
>>>
>>> 2. have someone apply mark-up to the document professionally either pre
>>> or post conversion...there are pros and cons to both approaches but
>> both are
>>> pretty labor intensive.
>>
>> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>> Duff Johnson
>> Appligent Document Solutions
>> http://www.appligent.com
>>

From: Rakesh.Paladugula@cognizant.com
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 11:27PM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi folks,
I am searching for a document with test cases for PDF accessibility. Can
any one of you have similar info or any pointers to the same. An early
response is highly appreciated.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Duff Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:21 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Simius Puer wrote:

> I think we agree on the general principles here but I'm not entirely
sure
> why my response was dissected quite so thoroughly...

The "dissection"? Because you started with "Several major problems I
can see..." in regards what I considered a perfectly reasonable and
innocuous piece of situationally-specific advice.

Otherwise, I thought it was good educational fun. Snips for brevity
below...

> I agree with you that tools such as MS Word as they do have
limitations. In
> the real world though, the vast majority of bad mark-up is actually
down to
> the user not using the tool properly. I've also seen people say "Word
can
> not do XYZ" when I know full well that it can.

This is undeniably the case.

> Actually, it is entirely
> possible to give a document layout in Word without resorting to
tables. It
> might not be easy or intuitive, but it is a capability.

...but as we know, users will use the tool that's more intuitive or
otherwise familiar.

If the dang tool was capable of interacting with the user's choices to
effectively assist them in validating their intentions, then "table"
would simply be a content-handling concept that either may or may not
have logical-structure implications when deployed / published / output,
etc.

Of course, I'm not sure if the concept of content differentiated from
logical structure "computes" in the HTML-centric mind - but we should
probably leave that aside for now! :-)

> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary!
>>
>
> Me neither as I agree there are plenty of them hence I didn't rake
them up
> again - people can read the archives for that. My point was that most
> people are not even aware of the considerations when it comes to
format
> choice...not everyone is as familiar with the topic and might not know
that
> debate already exists on this list!

Well, I thought you meant otherwise... asking the questioner to
reconsider their delivery AND (potentially) authoring platforms simply
because they want to know how to wrangle a "table" struck me as a sort
of "passive-aggressive" move in the good old HTNL vs. PDF wars!

I'm glad to hear I was wrong.

> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question
had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific"
issue.
>>
> Primarily because this is a forum about web and web accessibility in
> general. Then there was the hint: "She writes in Word, and then we
convert
> to PDF for publication on our website".

Ah.... and here we skirt dangerously close to the aforementioned wars...
because if you're disposed to think that PDF is a perfectly legitimate
way to publish on a website for all sorts of valid business reasons,
then (a) you don't automatically question the choice, and (b) the focus
tends to stay on the problem at hand rather than stepping back to first
principles of core technology choices and skill-sets.

> Sure, the tables are the focus of
> the problem, but as any Web professional knows when you look at one
problem,
> that problem is usually related to a slightly bigger picture.
>
> Now, if you work in a silo and only ever look at the problem in front
of you
> it might just talk about how to deal with the tables.

PDF exists precisely because people don't work in silos.

> However, taking a step back as I did, I simply suggested the
originator *may
> wish to consider* the format they are using in the first instance. I
don't
> think this takes such a leap of the imagination, it is not bad advice
and I
> don't see how putting that under a microscope will add any value to
the
> thread.

Ok - no more microscope! ;-)

> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would
be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>
> Agreed, it is sound advice for authoring accessible content in any
format.
> It wasn't specifically intended to be PDF-specific advice but the
whole
> point of "converting from Word to PDF" certainly puts it in that
ballpark.
>
> Again, I'm not sure why this point is being challenged or what value
you
> trying to add to the thread.

I was simply responding to the "major problems" you introduced.

> Just for the record I am not anti-PDF (which I get the impression was
the
> basis for your response) and I rate the file format quite highly -
*when
> used for legitimate reasons and created correctly*.

As is probably clear, we would probably disagree on what those
legitimate reasons might be... but that's for another thread (maybe in a
bar someday).

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com



> On 28 July 2010 11:35, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> These are interesting points, and I'm happy to provide some
additional
>> information.
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Simius Puer wrote:
>>
>>> Several major problems I can see:
>>>
>>> 1. You are getting someone unskilled in authoring for the web to
create
>>> the content. Content authors either need to be educated in
applying
>>> semantic structure to their documents, or the conversion of the
>> material
>>> should be left to someone in the web team.
>>
>> ...or the available tools (in the example case, MS Word) simply can't
do
>> the right thing by itself, no matter who is using it.
>>
>>> 2. By auto converting from Word to PDF with a source document that
has
>> no
>>> accessibility (I'm guessing as tables are used for layout that
other
>>> structures are also missing - heading etc) you are ending up with
an
>>> inaccessible PDF. The simple rule of rubbish in - rubbish out
(talking
>>> about the quality of the mark-up/tagging, not the actual content).
>>
>> No. Tables are used for layout because tables provide end-users with
>> layout capabilities in addition to semantic-structure capabilities.
>>
>> The problem is simply that software developers have yet to provide
>> conventional facilities to allow users to distinguish layout tables
from
>> tabular data when it comes to generating PDF files. It's not hard;
it's just
>> not been done yet. (just as Word doesn't yet support table row
headers).
>>
>>> 3. Whilst PDFs *can be* a million times more accessible than they
used
>> to
>>> be (if created properly), they still don't provide the best medium
for
>>> delivering Web content. There are plenty of discussions on that in
the
>>> archives of this discussion list...
>>
>> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary! I'll leave it at these hopefully
non-controversial
>> points...
>>
>> 1) There are legitimate reasons to publish in PDF.
>> 2) PDF provides a vehicle for making content from ANY source
accessible.
>> 3) The original question had to do with solving an accessibility
problem
>> in PDF
>>
>> Also note that the problem reported is NOT specific to PDF but is in
fact
>> the artifact of an authoring tool. As such, the problem also affects
Word,
>> HTML, etc.. not just PDF.
>>
>>> My suggestion would be to re-consider why you are using PDF to
publish
>> what
>>> sounds like Web content (as distinct from a document you simply wish
to
>>> share over the Internet) in the first place.
>>
>> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original
question had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific"
issue.
>>
>>> Most of the reasons people
>>> give for this are a little misled (I need people to be able to print
it
>>> etc...) and other reasons like SEO have not even been considered.
>>
>> I am tempted, but I'm not going there! (on this thread, anyhow)
>>
>>> If you have a genuine requiremtn to publish in PDF then to get
accessible
>>> PDFs you need to either:
>>>
>>> 1. educate your content creators into applying semantic markup and
also
>>> applying post-conversion QA *and *cleaning up any tag soup/apply
>> missing
>>> mark-up
>>>
>>> 2. have someone apply mark-up to the document professionally either
pre
>>> or post conversion...there are pros and cons to both approaches but
>> both are
>>> pretty labor intensive.
>>
>> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would
be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>> Duff Johnson
>> Appligent Document Solutions
>> http://www.appligent.com
>>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jul 29 2010 6:15AM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

Rakesh,
I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for when you say "a document with test cases for PDF". Can you clarify?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://twitter.com/awkawk
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:27 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

Hi folks,
I am searching for a document with test cases for PDF accessibility. Can
any one of you have similar info or any pointers to the same. An early
response is highly appreciated.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Duff Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:21 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Simius Puer wrote:

> I think we agree on the general principles here but I'm not entirely
sure
> why my response was dissected quite so thoroughly...

The "dissection"? Because you started with "Several major problems I
can see..." in regards what I considered a perfectly reasonable and
innocuous piece of situationally-specific advice.

Otherwise, I thought it was good educational fun. Snips for brevity
below...

> I agree with you that tools such as MS Word as they do have
limitations. In
> the real world though, the vast majority of bad mark-up is actually
down to
> the user not using the tool properly. I've also seen people say "Word
can
> not do XYZ" when I know full well that it can.

This is undeniably the case.

> Actually, it is entirely
> possible to give a document layout in Word without resorting to
tables. It
> might not be easy or intuitive, but it is a capability.

...but as we know, users will use the tool that's more intuitive or
otherwise familiar.

If the dang tool was capable of interacting with the user's choices to
effectively assist them in validating their intentions, then "table"
would simply be a content-handling concept that either may or may not
have logical-structure implications when deployed / published / output,
etc.

Of course, I'm not sure if the concept of content differentiated from
logical structure "computes" in the HTML-centric mind - but we should
probably leave that aside for now! :-)

> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary!
>>
>
> Me neither as I agree there are plenty of them hence I didn't rake
them up
> again - people can read the archives for that. My point was that most
> people are not even aware of the considerations when it comes to
format
> choice...not everyone is as familiar with the topic and might not know
that
> debate already exists on this list!

Well, I thought you meant otherwise... asking the questioner to
reconsider their delivery AND (potentially) authoring platforms simply
because they want to know how to wrangle a "table" struck me as a sort
of "passive-aggressive" move in the good old HTNL vs. PDF wars!

I'm glad to hear I was wrong.

> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question
had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific"
issue.
>>
> Primarily because this is a forum about web and web accessibility in
> general. Then there was the hint: "She writes in Word, and then we
convert
> to PDF for publication on our website".

Ah.... and here we skirt dangerously close to the aforementioned wars...
because if you're disposed to think that PDF is a perfectly legitimate
way to publish on a website for all sorts of valid business reasons,
then (a) you don't automatically question the choice, and (b) the focus
tends to stay on the problem at hand rather than stepping back to first
principles of core technology choices and skill-sets.

> Sure, the tables are the focus of
> the problem, but as any Web professional knows when you look at one
problem,
> that problem is usually related to a slightly bigger picture.
>
> Now, if you work in a silo and only ever look at the problem in front
of you
> it might just talk about how to deal with the tables.

PDF exists precisely because people don't work in silos.

> However, taking a step back as I did, I simply suggested the
originator *may
> wish to consider* the format they are using in the first instance. I
don't
> think this takes such a leap of the imagination, it is not bad advice
and I
> don't see how putting that under a microscope will add any value to
the
> thread.

Ok - no more microscope! ;-)

> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would
be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>
> Agreed, it is sound advice for authoring accessible content in any
format.
> It wasn't specifically intended to be PDF-specific advice but the
whole
> point of "converting from Word to PDF" certainly puts it in that
ballpark.
>
> Again, I'm not sure why this point is being challenged or what value
you
> trying to add to the thread.

I was simply responding to the "major problems" you introduced.

> Just for the record I am not anti-PDF (which I get the impression was
the
> basis for your response) and I rate the file format quite highly -
*when
> used for legitimate reasons and created correctly*.

As is probably clear, we would probably disagree on what those
legitimate reasons might be... but that's for another thread (maybe in a
bar someday).

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com



> On 28 July 2010 11:35, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> These are interesting points, and I'm happy to provide some
additional
>> information.
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Simius Puer wrote:
>>
>>> Several major problems I can see:
>>>
>>> 1. You are getting someone unskilled in authoring for the web to
create
>>> the content. Content authors either need to be educated in
applying
>>> semantic structure to their documents, or the conversion of the
>> material
>>> should be left to someone in the web team.
>>
>> ...or the available tools (in the example case, MS Word) simply can't
do
>> the right thing by itself, no matter who is using it.
>>
>>> 2. By auto converting from Word to PDF with a source document that
has
>> no
>>> accessibility (I'm guessing as tables are used for layout that
other
>>> structures are also missing - heading etc) you are ending up with
an
>>> inaccessible PDF. The simple rule of rubbish in - rubbish out
(talking
>>> about the quality of the mark-up/tagging, not the actual content).
>>
>> No. Tables are used for layout because tables provide end-users with
>> layout capabilities in addition to semantic-structure capabilities.
>>
>> The problem is simply that software developers have yet to provide
>> conventional facilities to allow users to distinguish layout tables
from
>> tabular data when it comes to generating PDF files. It's not hard;
it's just
>> not been done yet. (just as Word doesn't yet support table row
headers).
>>
>>> 3. Whilst PDFs *can be* a million times more accessible than they
used
>> to
>>> be (if created properly), they still don't provide the best medium
for
>>> delivering Web content. There are plenty of discussions on that in
the
>>> archives of this discussion list...
>>
>> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary! I'll leave it at these hopefully
non-controversial
>> points...
>>
>> 1) There are legitimate reasons to publish in PDF.
>> 2) PDF provides a vehicle for making content from ANY source
accessible.
>> 3) The original question had to do with solving an accessibility
problem
>> in PDF
>>
>> Also note that the problem reported is NOT specific to PDF but is in
fact
>> the artifact of an authoring tool. As such, the problem also affects
Word,
>> HTML, etc.. not just PDF.
>>
>>> My suggestion would be to re-consider why you are using PDF to
publish
>> what
>>> sounds like Web content (as distinct from a document you simply wish
to
>>> share over the Internet) in the first place.
>>
>> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original
question had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific"
issue.
>>
>>> Most of the reasons people
>>> give for this are a little misled (I need people to be able to print
it
>>> etc...) and other reasons like SEO have not even been considered.
>>
>> I am tempted, but I'm not going there! (on this thread, anyhow)
>>
>>> If you have a genuine requiremtn to publish in PDF then to get
accessible
>>> PDFs you need to either:
>>>
>>> 1. educate your content creators into applying semantic markup and
also
>>> applying post-conversion QA *and *cleaning up any tag soup/apply
>> missing
>>> mark-up
>>>
>>> 2. have someone apply mark-up to the document professionally either
pre
>>> or post conversion...there are pros and cons to both approaches but
>> both are
>>> pretty labor intensive.
>>
>> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would
be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>> Duff Johnson
>> Appligent Document Solutions
>> http://www.appligent.com
>>

From: Rakesh.Paladugula@cognizant.com
Date: Thu, Jul 29 2010 10:06PM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Awk,
Thank you for your early response.

I am looking for the documents which specify what should be tested to
find that the PDF document is 100% accessible. eg: Verify the
navigation mechanisms in the document to aid the screen reader users etc
.
I require a list of check-points to be tested for all kinds of
disabilities and assistive technologies.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:44 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

Rakesh,
I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for when you say "a document
with test cases for PDF". Can you clarify?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://twitter.com/awkawk
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:27 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

Hi folks,
I am searching for a document with test cases for PDF accessibility. Can
any one of you have similar info or any pointers to the same. An early
response is highly appreciated.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Duff Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:21 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Simius Puer wrote:

> I think we agree on the general principles here but I'm not entirely
sure
> why my response was dissected quite so thoroughly...

The "dissection"? Because you started with "Several major problems I
can see..." in regards what I considered a perfectly reasonable and
innocuous piece of situationally-specific advice.

Otherwise, I thought it was good educational fun. Snips for brevity
below...

> I agree with you that tools such as MS Word as they do have
limitations. In
> the real world though, the vast majority of bad mark-up is actually
down to
> the user not using the tool properly. I've also seen people say "Word
can
> not do XYZ" when I know full well that it can.

This is undeniably the case.

> Actually, it is entirely
> possible to give a document layout in Word without resorting to
tables. It
> might not be easy or intuitive, but it is a capability.

...but as we know, users will use the tool that's more intuitive or
otherwise familiar.

If the dang tool was capable of interacting with the user's choices to
effectively assist them in validating their intentions, then "table"
would simply be a content-handling concept that either may or may not
have logical-structure implications when deployed / published / output,
etc.

Of course, I'm not sure if the concept of content differentiated from
logical structure "computes" in the HTML-centric mind - but we should
probably leave that aside for now! :-)

> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary!
>>
>
> Me neither as I agree there are plenty of them hence I didn't rake
them up
> again - people can read the archives for that. My point was that most
> people are not even aware of the considerations when it comes to
format
> choice...not everyone is as familiar with the topic and might not know
that
> debate already exists on this list!

Well, I thought you meant otherwise... asking the questioner to
reconsider their delivery AND (potentially) authoring platforms simply
because they want to know how to wrangle a "table" struck me as a sort
of "passive-aggressive" move in the good old HTNL vs. PDF wars!

I'm glad to hear I was wrong.

> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original question
had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific"
issue.
>>
> Primarily because this is a forum about web and web accessibility in
> general. Then there was the hint: "She writes in Word, and then we
convert
> to PDF for publication on our website".

Ah.... and here we skirt dangerously close to the aforementioned wars...
because if you're disposed to think that PDF is a perfectly legitimate
way to publish on a website for all sorts of valid business reasons,
then (a) you don't automatically question the choice, and (b) the focus
tends to stay on the problem at hand rather than stepping back to first
principles of core technology choices and skill-sets.

> Sure, the tables are the focus of
> the problem, but as any Web professional knows when you look at one
problem,
> that problem is usually related to a slightly bigger picture.
>
> Now, if you work in a silo and only ever look at the problem in front
of you
> it might just talk about how to deal with the tables.

PDF exists precisely because people don't work in silos.

> However, taking a step back as I did, I simply suggested the
originator *may
> wish to consider* the format they are using in the first instance. I
don't
> think this takes such a leap of the imagination, it is not bad advice
and I
> don't see how putting that under a microscope will add any value to
the
> thread.

Ok - no more microscope! ;-)

> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would
be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>
> Agreed, it is sound advice for authoring accessible content in any
format.
> It wasn't specifically intended to be PDF-specific advice but the
whole
> point of "converting from Word to PDF" certainly puts it in that
ballpark.
>
> Again, I'm not sure why this point is being challenged or what value
you
> trying to add to the thread.

I was simply responding to the "major problems" you introduced.

> Just for the record I am not anti-PDF (which I get the impression was
the
> basis for your response) and I rate the file format quite highly -
*when
> used for legitimate reasons and created correctly*.

As is probably clear, we would probably disagree on what those
legitimate reasons might be... but that's for another thread (maybe in a
bar someday).

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions
http://www.appligent.com



> On 28 July 2010 11:35, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> These are interesting points, and I'm happy to provide some
additional
>> information.
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:38 AM, Simius Puer wrote:
>>
>>> Several major problems I can see:
>>>
>>> 1. You are getting someone unskilled in authoring for the web to
create
>>> the content. Content authors either need to be educated in
applying
>>> semantic structure to their documents, or the conversion of the
>> material
>>> should be left to someone in the web team.
>>
>> ...or the available tools (in the example case, MS Word) simply can't
do
>> the right thing by itself, no matter who is using it.
>>
>>> 2. By auto converting from Word to PDF with a source document that
has
>> no
>>> accessibility (I'm guessing as tables are used for layout that
other
>>> structures are also missing - heading etc) you are ending up with
an
>>> inaccessible PDF. The simple rule of rubbish in - rubbish out
(talking
>>> about the quality of the mark-up/tagging, not the actual content).
>>
>> No. Tables are used for layout because tables provide end-users with
>> layout capabilities in addition to semantic-structure capabilities.
>>
>> The problem is simply that software developers have yet to provide
>> conventional facilities to allow users to distinguish layout tables
from
>> tabular data when it comes to generating PDF files. It's not hard;
it's just
>> not been done yet. (just as Word doesn't yet support table row
headers).
>>
>>> 3. Whilst PDFs *can be* a million times more accessible than they
used
>> to
>>> be (if created properly), they still don't provide the best medium
for
>>> delivering Web content. There are plenty of discussions on that in
the
>>> archives of this discussion list...
>>
>> I don't want to re-start the "good format for the web" wars unless
>> absolutely necessary! I'll leave it at these hopefully
non-controversial
>> points...
>>
>> 1) There are legitimate reasons to publish in PDF.
>> 2) PDF provides a vehicle for making content from ANY source
accessible.
>> 3) The original question had to do with solving an accessibility
problem
>> in PDF
>>
>> Also note that the problem reported is NOT specific to PDF but is in
fact
>> the artifact of an authoring tool. As such, the problem also affects
Word,
>> HTML, etc.. not just PDF.
>>
>>> My suggestion would be to re-consider why you are using PDF to
publish
>> what
>>> sounds like Web content (as distinct from a document you simply wish
to
>>> share over the Internet) in the first place.
>>
>> On what basis does it "sound like web content"? The original
question had
>> to do with table structure - not exactly a "web content specific"
issue.
>>
>>> Most of the reasons people
>>> give for this are a little misled (I need people to be able to print
it
>>> etc...) and other reasons like SEO have not even been considered.
>>
>> I am tempted, but I'm not going there! (on this thread, anyhow)
>>
>>> If you have a genuine requiremtn to publish in PDF then to get
accessible
>>> PDFs you need to either:
>>>
>>> 1. educate your content creators into applying semantic markup and
also
>>> applying post-conversion QA *and *cleaning up any tag soup/apply
>> missing
>>> mark-up
>>>
>>> 2. have someone apply mark-up to the document professionally either
pre
>>> or post conversion...there are pros and cons to both approaches but
>> both are
>>> pretty labor intensive.
>>
>> How is this advice PDF-specific? It seems the same advice that would
be
>> required for authoring accessible content from any format.
>>
>> Duff Johnson
>> Appligent Document Solutions
>> http://www.appligent.com
>>

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Fri, Jul 30 2010 7:57AM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | Next message →

Rakesh,

What you are looking for is a document called ISO 14289 (PDF/UA). It's still under development at this time (we're at the 3rd Committee Draft stage), so it's not yet an International Standard (we hope to get there by early next year).

I would not advise you to develop on the basis of this draft, as it may change. That said, access to the draft is a function of participation in the PDF/UA effort.

More information is available here:

http://pdf.editme.com/pdfua

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions, CEO
US Committee for ISO/CD 14289 (PDF/UA), Chair

22 E. Baltimore Ave
Lansdowne, PA 19050
+1 610 284 4006
+1 617 553 1934 (direct)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.appligent.com
http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson

On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:04 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi Awk,
> Thank you for your early response.
>
> I am looking for the documents which specify what should be tested to
> find that the PDF document is 100% accessible. eg: Verify the
> navigation mechanisms in the document to aid the screen reader users etc
> .
> I require a list of check-points to be tested for all kinds of
> disabilities and assistive technologies.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:44 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings
>
> Rakesh,
> I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for when you say "a document
> with test cases for PDF". Can you clarify?
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:27 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings
>
> Hi folks,
> I am searching for a document with test cases for PDF accessibility. Can
> any one of you have similar info or any pointers to the same. An early
> response is highly appreciated.

From: Rakesh.Paladugula@cognizant.com
Date: Mon, Aug 02 2010 5:12AM
Subject: Re: Use of Headings
← Previous message | No next message

Thank you Johnson.
The URL you have provided is blocked by our system security team. Is it
possible for you to provide an alternate version of the same?

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Duff Johnson
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 7:24 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings

Rakesh,

What you are looking for is a document called ISO 14289 (PDF/UA). It's
still under development at this time (we're at the 3rd Committee Draft
stage), so it's not yet an International Standard (we hope to get there
by early next year).

I would not advise you to develop on the basis of this draft, as it may
change. That said, access to the draft is a function of participation
in the PDF/UA effort.

More information is available here:

http://pdf.editme.com/pdfua

Duff Johnson
Appligent Document Solutions, CEO
US Committee for ISO/CD 14289 (PDF/UA), Chair

22 E. Baltimore Ave
Lansdowne, PA 19050
+1 610 284 4006
+1 617 553 1934 (direct)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.appligent.com
http://www.twitter.com/duffjohnson

On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:04 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi Awk,
> Thank you for your early response.
>
> I am looking for the documents which specify what should be tested to
> find that the PDF document is 100% accessible. eg: Verify the
> navigation mechanisms in the document to aid the screen reader users
etc
> .
> I require a list of check-points to be tested for all kinds of
> disabilities and assistive technologies.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:44 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings
>
> Rakesh,
> I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for when you say "a document
> with test cases for PDF". Can you clarify?
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:27 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Use of Headings
>
> Hi folks,
> I am searching for a document with test cases for PDF accessibility.
Can
> any one of you have similar info or any pointers to the same. An early
> response is highly appreciated.