E-mail List Archives
Thread: PDF Accessibility
Number of posts in this thread: 11 (In chronological order)
From: Pooja.Nahata@cognizant.com
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 5:54AM
Subject: PDF Accessibility
No previous message | Next message →
Hello,
Does anyone on the group know if we get a productivity gain on using
CommonLook then Acrobat Pro X for making PDFs accessible?
Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead
Content & Design Services @ Cognizant Technology Solutions
Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 7:18AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
From my experience, I say "it depends."
The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as MS
Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the least
amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this scenario, you
don't even need CommonLook.
But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix someone
else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy, especially for tables
and forms.
Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is iffy
at best:
1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well can
any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to items
such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items which partly
meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the right tags you've
missed the point of accessibility.
Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything you
need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags that are
created.
2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must look at
the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or decorative
frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content. Rarely can this
process can not be automated.
My recommendation.
CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source documents
and fix the problems there,
2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
- Bevi Chagnon
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 7:36AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Correcting a typo.
The end of Point #2 should read: Rarely can this process be automated.
- Bevi
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Fri, Jul 22 2011 12:09PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I would concur with all 3 points.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 9:20 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>From my experience, I say "it depends."
The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as MS
Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the least
amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this scenario, you
don't even need CommonLook.
But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix someone
else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy, especially for
tables
and forms.
Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is
iffy
at best:
1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
can
any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to items
such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items which
partly
meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the right tags
you've
missed the point of accessibility.
Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything you
need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags that
are
created.
2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
look at
the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or
decorative
frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content. Rarely can this
process can not be automated.
My recommendation.
CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
documents
and fix the problems there,
2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
- Bevi Chagnon
From: Pooja.Nahata@cognizant.com
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2011 12:51AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Bevin for the detailed analysis.
I understand that both these tools have more or less the same
functionality - CommonLook has an edge when it comes to volume, forms,
and tables. But with regards to cost I am not sure if we would greater
ROI with CommonLook than Adobe. With CommonLook - high Cost, less
efforts; Adobe - low cost, more efforts. Also, manual testing is
required in both tools. So, would Adobe be effective from both solution
& cost perspective when we have a set of PDFs with composition 50% Text,
25% Tables, and 25% Forms?
Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead
Content & Design Services @ Cognizant Technology Solutions
Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bevi Chagnon
| PubCom
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:50 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
From my experience, I say "it depends."
The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as MS
Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the least
amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this scenario, you
don't even need CommonLook.
But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix someone
else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy, especially for
tables
and forms.
Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is
iffy
at best:
1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
can
any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to items
such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items which
partly
meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the right tags
you've
missed the point of accessibility.
Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything you
need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags that
are
created.
2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
look at
the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or
decorative
frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content. Rarely can this
process can not be automated.
My recommendation.
CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
documents
and fix the problems there,
2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
- Bevi Chagnon
From: McKeithan, Thomas
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2011 5:51AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I think that you need to conduct a CBO Analysis to make this determination coupled with determining what's easier for users to gravitate too.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lee McKeithan II
Accessibility Program Manager
National Industries for the Blind
1310 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703)310-0586 Direct
(202)276-6437 Cell
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
"Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:51 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
Thanks Bevin for the detailed analysis.
I understand that both these tools have more or less the same
functionality - CommonLook has an edge when it comes to volume, forms,
and tables. But with regards to cost I am not sure if we would greater
ROI with CommonLook than Adobe. With CommonLook - high Cost, less
efforts; Adobe - low cost, more efforts. Also, manual testing is
required in both tools. So, would Adobe be effective from both solution
& cost perspective when we have a set of PDFs with composition 50% Text,
25% Tables, and 25% Forms?
Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead
Content & Design Services @ Cognizant Technology Solutions
Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bevi Chagnon
| PubCom
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:50 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
From my experience, I say "it depends."
The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as MS
Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the least
amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this scenario, you
don't even need CommonLook.
But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix someone
else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy, especially for
tables
and forms.
Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is
iffy
at best:
1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
can
any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to items
such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items which
partly
meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the right tags
you've
missed the point of accessibility.
Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything you
need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags that
are
created.
2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
look at
the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or
decorative
frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content. Rarely can this
process can not be automated.
My recommendation.
CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
documents
and fix the problems there,
2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
- Bevi Chagnon
From: Nancy Johnson
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2011 6:27AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
A year ago, our team was developing a dynamic pdf form product, I
believe using Flex at that time, learned that these forms could not be
tagged and made screen reader accessible.
I was using LifeCycle Designer and working with someone from Adobe,
even if I tried to tag them correctly using the product, it didn't
work.
Is this still correct? or has that changed.
Thanks,
Nancy
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:50 AM, McKeithan, Thomas < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I think that you need to conduct a CBO Analysis to make this determination coupled with determining what's easier for users to gravitate too.
>
> Respectfully,
> Thomas Lee McKeithan II
> Accessibility Program Manager
> National Industries for the Blind
> 1310 Braddock Place
> Alexandria, VA 22314
> (703)310-0586 Direct
> (202)276-6437 Cell
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
> "Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:51 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>
>
> Thanks Bevin for the detailed analysis.
>
> I understand that both these tools have more or less the same
> functionality - CommonLook has an edge when it comes to volume, forms,
> and tables. But with regards to cost I am not sure if we would greater
> ROI with CommonLook than Adobe. With CommonLook - high Cost, less
> efforts; Adobe - low cost, more efforts. Also, manual testing is
> required in both tools. So, would Adobe be effective from both solution
> & cost perspective when we have a set of PDFs with composition 50% Text,
> 25% Tables, and 25% Forms?
>
> Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead
> Content & Design Services @ Cognizant Technology Solutions
> Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
> LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bevi Chagnon
> | PubCom
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:50 PM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>
> From my experience, I say "it depends."
>
> The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as MS
> Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the least
> amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this scenario, you
> don't even need CommonLook.
>
> But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix someone
> else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy, especially for
> tables
> and forms.
>
> Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is
> iffy
> at best:
>
> 1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
> can
> any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to items
> such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items which
> partly
> meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the right tags
> you've
> missed the point of accessibility.
> Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything you
> need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags that
> are
> created.
>
> 2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
> look at
> the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or
> decorative
> frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content. Rarely can this
> process can not be automated.
>
> My recommendation.
> CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
> 1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
> documents
> and fix the problems there,
> 2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
> 3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
>
> I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
>
> - Bevi Chagnon
>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2011 6:36AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Nancy,
I'm confused by your message - you're talking about creating dynamic PDF using Flex? PDf creation is not part of the Flex SDK product, creating Flash-based user interfaces is.
If you use LiveCycle Designer, you can certainly make the forms accessible. We have best practice information on this at http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/livecycle
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 Nancy Johnson
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:29 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
A year ago, our team was developing a dynamic pdf form product, I believe using Flex at that time, learned that these forms could not be tagged and made screen reader accessible.
I was using LifeCycle Designer and working with someone from Adobe, even if I tried to tag them correctly using the product, it didn't work.
Is this still correct? or has that changed.
Thanks,
Nancy
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:50 AM, McKeithan, Thomas < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I think that you need to conduct a CBO Analysis to make this determination coupled with determining what's easier for users to gravitate too.
>
> Respectfully,
> Thomas Lee McKeithan II
> Accessibility Program Manager
> National Industries for the Blind
> 1310 Braddock Place
> Alexandria, VA 22314
> (703)310-0586 Direct
> (202)276-6437 Cell
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
> "Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:51 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>
>
> Thanks Bevin for the detailed analysis.
>
> I understand that both these tools have more or less the same
> functionality - CommonLook has an edge when it comes to volume, forms,
> and tables. But with regards to cost I am not sure if we would greater
> ROI with CommonLook than Adobe. With CommonLook - high Cost, less
> efforts; Adobe - low cost, more efforts. Also, manual testing is
> required in both tools. So, would Adobe be effective from both
> solution & cost perspective when we have a set of PDFs with
> composition 50% Text, 25% Tables, and 25% Forms?
>
> Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead Content & Design Services @
> Cognizant Technology Solutions
> Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
> LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bevi
> Chagnon
> | PubCom
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:50 PM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>
> From my experience, I say "it depends."
>
> The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as
> MS Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the
> least amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this
> scenario, you don't even need CommonLook.
>
> But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix
> someone else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy,
> especially for tables and forms.
>
> Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is
> iffy at best:
>
> 1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
> can any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to
> items such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items
> which partly meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the
> right tags you've missed the point of accessibility.
> Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything
> you need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags
> that are created.
>
> 2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
> look at the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or
> decorative frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content.
> Rarely can this process can not be automated.
>
> My recommendation.
> CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
> 1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
> documents and fix the problems there,
> 2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
> 3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
>
> I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
>
> - Bevi Chagnon
>
From: Nancy Johnson
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2011 11:33AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I am the frontend designer and also do 508 testing. This was a
dynamic form with an XML backend
We used LifeCycle Designer and I went to the accessibility tag section
and added them.
However, it did not work, whenever I used a screenreader, it said it
wasn't tagged.. so I went back into Lifecycle and tried to add them
and again it couldn't be tagged.
I was working with an independent contractor -- working on Adobe
products, although I understood he did some research on the matter.
Later I went to Massachusetts Un-conference in May of 2010 hosted at
Adobe's Waltham MA facility and posed it to someone who was an pdf
engineer not from Adobe... he thought that this kind of dynamic pdf
couldn't be made accessible.... I'm sorry I don't have more specifics
for you.
Thanks Nancy
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Nancy,
> I'm confused by your message - you're talking about creating dynamic PDF using Flex? PDf creation is not part of the Flex SDK product, creating Flash-based user interfaces is.
>
> If you use LiveCycle Designer, you can certainly make the forms accessible. We have best practice information on this at http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/livecycle
>
> 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 Nancy Johnson
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:29 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>
> A year ago, our team was developing a dynamic pdf form product, I believe using Flex at that time, learned that these forms could not be tagged and made screen reader accessible.
>
> I was using LifeCycle Designer and working with someone from Adobe, even if I tried to tag them correctly using the product, it didn't work.
>
> Is this still correct? or has that changed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nancy
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:50 AM, McKeithan, Thomas < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> I think that you need to conduct a CBO Analysis to make this determination coupled with determining what's easier for users to gravitate too.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Thomas Lee McKeithan II
>> Accessibility Program Manager
>> National Industries for the Blind
>> 1310 Braddock Place
>> Alexandria, VA 22314
>> (703)310-0586 Direct
>> (202)276-6437 Cell
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>>
>> "Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:51 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>>
>>
>> Thanks Bevin for the detailed analysis.
>>
>> I understand that both these tools have more or less the same
>> functionality - CommonLook has an edge when it comes to volume, forms,
>> and tables. But with regards to cost I am not sure if we would greater
>> ROI with CommonLook than Adobe. With CommonLook - high Cost, less
>> efforts; Adobe - low cost, more efforts. Also, manual testing is
>> required in both tools. So, would Adobe be effective from both
>> solution & cost perspective when we have a set of PDFs with
>> composition 50% Text, 25% Tables, and 25% Forms?
>>
>> Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead Content & Design Services @
>> Cognizant Technology Solutions
>> Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
>> LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bevi
>> Chagnon
>> | PubCom
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:50 PM
>> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>>
>> From my experience, I say "it depends."
>>
>> The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as
>> MS Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the
>> least amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this
>> scenario, you don't even need CommonLook.
>>
>> But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix
>> someone else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy,
>> especially for tables and forms.
>>
>> Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result is
>> iffy at best:
>>
>> 1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
>> can any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag to
>> items such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the items
>> which partly meets accessibility requirements, but if they're not the
>> right tags you've missed the point of accessibility.
>> Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything
>> you need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags
>> that are created.
>>
>> 2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
>> look at the graphic and determine whether it's critical information or
>> decorative frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content.
>> Rarely can this process can not be automated.
>>
>> My recommendation.
>> CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
>> 1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
>> documents and fix the problems there,
>> 2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
>> 3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
>>
>> I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
>>
>> - Bevi Chagnon
>>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2011 12:09PM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Nancy,
OK, sounds like a reasonable effort, but the information isn't all correct. LiveCycle Designer does create tagged PDF. It is possible to create an untagged PDF also - there is a checkbox to disable tagging so this may have been the issue.
The other issue is possibly one of testing - a Dynamic PDF doesn't create the tags unless they are needed by an active assistive technology. If you have a Dynamic PDF and open it in Acrobat you may not see tags if Reader doesn't detect an accessibility client. If you open a screen reader or an accessibility inspection tool like aDesigner or Inspect32 and THEN open the Dynamic PDF you will see tags in the tag tree. You still can't edit the tags in Acrobat, but LiveCycle allows you to add semantics and information needed.
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 Nancy Johnson
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:32 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
I am the frontend designer and also do 508 testing. This was a
dynamic form with an XML backend
We used LifeCycle Designer and I went to the accessibility tag section and added them.
However, it did not work, whenever I used a screenreader, it said it wasn't tagged.. so I went back into Lifecycle and tried to add them and again it couldn't be tagged.
I was working with an independent contractor -- working on Adobe products, although I understood he did some research on the matter.
Later I went to Massachusetts Un-conference in May of 2010 hosted at Adobe's Waltham MA facility and posed it to someone who was an pdf engineer not from Adobe... he thought that this kind of dynamic pdf couldn't be made accessible.... I'm sorry I don't have more specifics for you.
Thanks Nancy
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Nancy,
> I'm confused by your message - you're talking about creating dynamic PDF using Flex? PDf creation is not part of the Flex SDK product, creating Flash-based user interfaces is.
>
> If you use LiveCycle Designer, you can certainly make the forms
> accessible. We have best practice information on this at
> http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/livecycle
>
> 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 Nancy
> Johnson
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:29 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>
> A year ago, our team was developing a dynamic pdf form product, I believe using Flex at that time, learned that these forms could not be tagged and made screen reader accessible.
>
> I was using LifeCycle Designer and working with someone from Adobe, even if I tried to tag them correctly using the product, it didn't work.
>
> Is this still correct? or has that changed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nancy
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:50 AM, McKeithan, Thomas < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> I think that you need to conduct a CBO Analysis to make this determination coupled with determining what's easier for users to gravitate too.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Thomas Lee McKeithan II
>> Accessibility Program Manager
>> National Industries for the Blind
>> 1310 Braddock Place
>> Alexandria, VA 22314
>> (703)310-0586 Direct
>> (202)276-6437 Cell
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>>
>> "Believing is achieving, for if I believe, I can and I will achieve."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:51 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>>
>>
>> Thanks Bevin for the detailed analysis.
>>
>> I understand that both these tools have more or less the same
>> functionality - CommonLook has an edge when it comes to volume,
>> forms, and tables. But with regards to cost I am not sure if we would
>> greater ROI with CommonLook than Adobe. With CommonLook - high Cost,
>> less efforts; Adobe - low cost, more efforts. Also, manual testing is
>> required in both tools. So, would Adobe be effective from both
>> solution & cost perspective when we have a set of PDFs with
>> composition 50% Text, 25% Tables, and 25% Forms?
>>
>> Pooja Nahata | Accessibility Practice Lead Content & Design Services
>> @ Cognizant Technology Solutions
>> Vnet: 283170 | Hand Phone: +91-9820725102
>> LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/poojanahata
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pooja_Nahata
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bevi
>> Chagnon
>> | PubCom
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:50 PM
>> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] PDF Accessibility
>>
>> From my experience, I say "it depends."
>>
>> The best workflow is to create an accessible source document (such as
>> MS Word), which in turn produces a very decent PDF that requires the
>> least amount of tweaking in Acrobat PRO X or CommonLook. In this
>> scenario, you don't even need CommonLook.
>>
>> But if you're at the end of the production line and have to fix
>> someone else's lousy PDFs, then CommonLook can come in handy,
>> especially for tables and forms.
>>
>> Both Acrobat and CommonLook can automate things, but the end result
>> is iffy at best:
>>
>> 1) If it's an untagged PDF and tags are automatically added, how well
>> can any software - Acrobat or CommonLook - apply an appropriate tag
>> to items such as headings? These programs will apply tags to the
>> items which partly meets accessibility requirements, but if they're
>> not the right tags you've missed the point of accessibility.
>> Therefore, this feature in both programs doesn't give you everything
>> you need. A human being will still need to review and adjust the tags
>> that are created.
>>
>> 2) It's the same with adding Alt-Text attributes. A human being must
>> look at the graphic and determine whether it's critical information
>> or decorative frou-frou and write the appropriate Alt-Text content.
>> Rarely can this process can not be automated.
>>
>> My recommendation.
>> CommonLook is worth the cost if you have:
>> 1) Lots of PDFs to remediate and you can't go back to the source
>> documents and fix the problems there,
>> 2) Lots of PDF forms to make accessible, and
>> 3) Lots of PDF tables to make accessible.
>>
>> I hope others will chime in with their experiences with CommonLook.
>>
>> - Bevi Chagnon
>>
From: Lewis, Sunshine T.
Date: Tue, Jul 26 2011 11:45AM
Subject: Re: PDF Accessibility
← Previous message | No next message
It's been several years since I used CommonLook but my experience then was that any productivity gains were quickly lost by crashes and inexplicable bugs. More than once I would painstakingly get to page 18 of a 21 page document only to discover that at some point the half the text on page 6 was gone and (because of the odd auto-save functionality) I had to start over. I've been using Acrobat Pro as my only tool for PDF remediation ever since and although it is still tedious and occasionally inexplicable, I feel I have better control over the final outcome and less frustration in general.
However, I am more programmer than not, and the Acrobat Pro tags interface is familiar ground.
I think the real answer will depend on the person doing the remediation and what they are comfortable with. I'm not sure if CommonLook is offering demos yet but if you get the chance to try it out I would recommend evaluating it on individual user level.
Sunshine Lewis
Web Specialist
Florida Department of State, Division of Cultural Affairs
500 S. Bronough St. | Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
Phone: 850.245.6493 | Fax: 850.245.6497
http://www.florida-arts.org
Please take a few minutes to provide feedback on the quality of service you received from our staff. The Florida Department of State values your feedback as a customer. Kurt Browning, Florida Secretary of State, is committed to continuously assessing and improving the level and quality of services provided to you. Simply click on the link to the "DOS Customer Satisfaction Survey." Thank you in advance for your participation.
DOS Customer Satisfaction Survey: http://survey.dos.state.fl.us/index.aspx?email= = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:08 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 76, Issue 20
Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://list.webaim.org/mailman/listinfo/webaim-forum
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
You can reach the person managing the list at
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of WebAIM-Forum digest..."