E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 34 (In chronological order)

From: TX Knight
Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 9:48AM
Subject: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
No previous message | Next message →

Hi all,



Does anyone know of A PDF editor that is better at handling tags than
Adobe's PDF editor?

~Sam


--
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter
and those who matter don't mind.”
~Dr. Seuss

“If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
~Lewis Carroll

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 12:04PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Are you talking about how the tags are created from another program? If
that¹s the case, you might be having a problem with the Authoring Software.

What problem are you having with Acrobat Pro?

Jonathan





On 6/10/13 11:48 AM, "TX Knight" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>
>
>Does anyone know of A PDF editor that is better at handling tags than
>Adobe's PDF editor?
>
>~Sam
>
>
>--
>³Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter
>and those who matter don't mind.²
>~Dr. Seuss
>
>³If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.²
>~Lewis Carroll
>>>

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 3:02PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Sam,

you'll gave to explain what kind of editing you are after, otherwise it will be difficult to offer ideas...

Olaf


On 10 Jun 2013, at 17:48, TX Knight wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Does anyone know of A PDF editor that is better at handling tags than
> Adobe's PDF editor?
>
> ~Sam
>
>
> --
> “Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter
> and those who matter don't mind.”
> ~Dr. Seuss
>
> “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
> ~Lewis Carroll
> > >

From: Gunderson, Jon R
Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 3:30PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Probably editing the tags to represent the organization, structure and
information contained in the graphical content of the PDF.

Jon


On 6/10/13 4:02 PM, "Olaf Drümmer" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>Sam,
>
>you'll gave to explain what kind of editing you are after, otherwise it
>will be difficult to offer ideas...
>
>Olaf
>
>
>On 10 Jun 2013, at 17:48, TX Knight wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know of A PDF editor that is better at handling tags than
>> Adobe's PDF editor?
>>
>> ~Sam
>>
>>
>> --
>> ³Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't
>>matter
>> and those who matter don't mind.²
>> ~Dr. Seuss
>>
>> ³If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.²
>> ~Lewis Carroll
>> >> >> >
>>>

From: TX Knight
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 8:35AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks for everyone's fast reply.

To answer some of your questions, I currently use Adobe Acrobat Pro X to
touch up the tags created by other applications. For example, I may have
cause to touch up a PDF created by Microsoft Word.

The particular instance that convinced me to submit my question was a PDF
created by Microsoft Visio 2010. When looking at the tags of the PDF, it
became obvious that the reading order was completely messed up. I attempted
to fix the reading order manually and ran into two recurring issues.


1. I'd be in the process of changing the order, and then suddenly tags I
already moved, would rearrange themselves.
2. Also when I moved a tag, the text of the corresponding figure would
go blank. The undo feature never seems to fix this problem, so if I don't
save very frequently, I risk losing much of the progress I made.


If this was a one-time thing, I wouldn't have bothered submitting my
question. But I've noticed these same problems occurring in unrelated
documents from different authors.

It just recently occurred to me that Visio could be the problem. However in
at least one instance where these issues occurred, I don't believe the
author used Visio.

------- Forwarded message -------
From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 12:04PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
Previous message | Next message
Are you talking about how the tags are created from another program? If
that¹s the case, you might be having a problem with the Authoring Software.

What problem are you having with Acrobat Pro?

Jonathan
>From: TX Knight
>Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 9:48AM
>Subject: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
>No previous message | Next message
>
>Hi all,
>
>
>
>Does anyone know of A PDF editor that is better at handling tags than
> Adobe's PDF editor?
>
>~Sam

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 8:43AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

The only other tool I am aware of to edit the tags in a tagged PDF is "CommonLook PDF" from NetCentric (cf. http://www.commonlook.com/CommonLook-PDF ). I have used it only briefly (so I can't comment how useful it is for real work), but it does not seem to suffer from the Acrobat Pro problems mention (which are a well known limitation of Acrobat Pro).

Olaf

On 11 Jun 2013, at 16:35, TX Knight wrote:

> Thanks for everyone's fast reply.
>
> To answer some of your questions, I currently use Adobe Acrobat Pro X to
> touch up the tags created by other applications. For example, I may have
> cause to touch up a PDF created by Microsoft Word.
>
> The particular instance that convinced me to submit my question was a PDF
> created by Microsoft Visio 2010. When looking at the tags of the PDF, it
> became obvious that the reading order was completely messed up. I attempted
> to fix the reading order manually and ran into two recurring issues.
>
>
> 1. I'd be in the process of changing the order, and then suddenly tags I
> already moved, would rearrange themselves.
> 2. Also when I moved a tag, the text of the corresponding figure would
> go blank. The undo feature never seems to fix this problem, so if I don't
> save very frequently, I risk losing much of the progress I made.
>
>
> If this was a one-time thing, I wouldn't have bothered submitting my
> question. But I've noticed these same problems occurring in unrelated
> documents from different authors.
>
> It just recently occurred to me that Visio could be the problem. However in
> at least one instance where these issues occurred, I don't believe the
> author used Visio.
>
> ------- Forwarded message -------
> From: Jonathan Metz
> Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 12:04PM
> Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
> Previous message | Next message
> Are you talking about how the tags are created from another program? If
> that¹s the case, you might be having a problem with the Authoring Software.
>
> What problem are you having with Acrobat Pro?
>
> Jonathan
>> From: TX Knight
>> Date: Mon, Jun 10 2013 9:48AM
>> Subject: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
>> No previous message | Next message
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know of A PDF editor that is better at handling tags than
>> Adobe's PDF editor?
>>
>> ~Sam
> > >

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 8:53AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

> ... I attempted
> to fix the reading order manually and ran into two recurring issues.
>
> 1. I'd be in the process of changing the order, and then suddenly tags I
> already moved, would rearrange themselves.

Almost certainly, because you were making adjustments using the Touch Up Reading Order Tool (TUROT) after having made changes using the Tags panel.

This sort of procedure is a no-no because the Touch Up Reading Order Tool modifies both content reading order and tags simultaneously.

If you do use the TUROT then you pretty much have to do a 2nd pass in the tags panel to clean up the problems you've induced with the TUROT.

I generally advise users to avoid this tool, especially on very complex pages, and focus on the tags instead.

Duff.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 9:19AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

It happens when not using TUROT too. If a user moves content around in the
Reading Order (RO), then tags get moved around as well. If a user
mistakenly moves content up (instead of down) in the RO, then they run
into another issue of having content physically hidden in the real content
of the page (does this section have a technical name?).

I always been told that making adjustments to the Reading Order was an
essential part of fixing a page. Are you saying that the reading order not
matter then, if we just focus on the tags? This goes against everything
I¹ve learned in marking up a page.

I¹ve sort of approached the Reading Order panel as knowing the best way to
adjust the content on that page before ever opening the Tags Panel (unless
there are elements that should not have been made tags like with what
happens typically with PowerPoint slides).


Jonathan

On 6/11/13 10:53 AM, "Duff Johnson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>> ... I attempted
>> to fix the reading order manually and ran into two recurring issues.
>>
>> 1. I'd be in the process of changing the order, and then suddenly
>>tags I
>> already moved, would rearrange themselves.
>
>Almost certainly, because you were making adjustments using the Touch Up
>Reading Order Tool (TUROT) after having made changes using the Tags panel.
>
>This sort of procedure is a no-no because the Touch Up Reading Order Tool
>modifies both content reading order and tags simultaneously.
>
>If you do use the TUROT then you pretty much have to do a 2nd pass in the
>tags panel to clean up the problems you've induced with the TUROT.
>
>I generally advise users to avoid this tool, especially on very complex
>pages, and focus on the tags instead.
>
>Duff.
>>>

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 9:38AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

On Jun 11, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Jonathan Metz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> It happens when not using TUROT too. If a user moves content around in the
> Reading Order (RO), then tags get moved around as well.

Yes… I neglected to mention that; thanks.

> If a user
> mistakenly moves content up (instead of down) in the RO, then they run
> into another issue of having content physically hidden in the real content
> of the page (does this section have a technical name?).

Yes, it's (very) possible to screw up the visibility of objects on the PDF page by messing with the Reading Order.

One *must* remember that content reading order in PDF isn't equal to the linear sequence of a user's experience of the content. It's the order in which objects are *painted* onto the PDF page. There's a *big* difference!

> I always been told that making adjustments to the Reading Order was an
> essential part of fixing a page. Are you saying that the reading order not
> matter then, if we just focus on the tags? This goes against everything
> I¹ve learned in marking up a page.

It should be said up-front that PDF creation software *should* align content reading order with the logical order provided by tags when the PDF is created. At least, it says as much in ISO 32000.

Ok, back to reality...

The reason to invest the time and sweat in adjusting content Reading Order in an existing PDF file would be to accommodate software that doesn't understand tagged PDF.

If you consider that a good reason then you are welcome to it. There's no other reason.

> I¹ve sort of approached the Reading Order panel as knowing the best way to
> adjust the content on that page before ever opening the Tags Panel (unless
> there are elements that should not have been made tags like with what
> happens typically with PowerPoint slides).

If you are adjusting both content reading order and tags then, yes, it makes sense to adjust the content reading order before tweaking the tags.

Doing it in any other sequence will simply drive you down a self-imposed death-spiral of fixing the fixes and then, fixing again...

Duff.

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 9:41AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

There are quite a few items that can be corrected in TURO, not just the
reading order.

For example, it's one of the easiest ways to select an element and set it to
artifact/background. Or grab and tag a graphic or other element that wasn't
exported correctly from Word by the PDF Maker plug-in (especially for
wrapped graphics and anchored text boxes which always get left out during
PDF conversion). Or grab and tag information in a repeating footer that
needs to be voiced at least once for the reader (just had to do this for
govt docs with critical security info in the footer).

I've found that fixing the RO first often clears up some of the tag problems
and there's less stuff to fix in the tag tree/structure. Our process:
1) clean up reading order.
2) clean up tag tree/structure.
3) clean up content order (which usually needs very little adjusting by this
point).

TX Knight wrote: "2. Also when I moved a tag, the text of the corresponding
figure would
go blank. The undo feature never seems to fix this problem, so if I don't
save very frequently, I risk losing much of the progress I made."

Yes, that happens in the RO panel. Adjusting the sequence in the panel often
causes one element to become hidden behind another. Solution: find the
hidden item in the RO's panel on the left, and drag-and-drop it before the
item that's hiding it. This is a stacking order problem so you must change
what's in front, what's behind. In some documents the stacking order in RO
won't be ideal, but RO isn't as important for today's AT as it once was and
the change in sequence usually doesn't affect comprehension much.

-Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 9:50AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

According the PDF/UA standard, it is only the content order as defined in the tagging structure that counts.

The relevance of Touch Up Reading Order Tool (TUROT) is essentially a thing of the past, and only served to compensate for a not well implemented feature known as reflow in Acrobat / Adobe Reader. As it is failing to be useful most of the time anyway once you use it for non-trivial page content - TUROT order in place or not - it is not really worth taking into account anymore.

Today's noteworthy reflow tools only look at the tagging order (check out callas pdfGoHTML as one option, or check out the upcoming PDF reader for visually impaired people, from one of the Swiss organisations for blind and visually impaired people - http://www.szb.ch/presse/mitteilungen/erster-pdf-reader-fuer-sehbehinderte.html in German - use http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.szb.ch/presse/mitteilungen/erster-pdf-reader-fuer-sehbehinderte.html&;hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 as a Google Translate based rough translation - scheduled to ship June 24, 2013, for Mac and Windows, free of charge, and supposedly going to be available in German, French, Italian and English).

So say bye-bye to TUROT and Acrobat reflow, focus on getting your tagging order right and have a productive life again, and use PDF reading tools that work well...

Olaf


On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:19, Jonathan Metz wrote:

> It happens when not using TUROT too. If a user moves content around in the
> Reading Order (RO), then tags get moved around as well. If a user
> mistakenly moves content up (instead of down) in the RO, then they run
> into another issue of having content physically hidden in the real content
> of the page (does this section have a technical name?).
>
> I always been told that making adjustments to the Reading Order was an
> essential part of fixing a page. Are you saying that the reading order not
> matter then, if we just focus on the tags? This goes against everything
> I¹ve learned in marking up a page.
>
> I¹ve sort of approached the Reading Order panel as knowing the best way to
> adjust the content on that page before ever opening the Tags Panel (unless
> there are elements that should not have been made tags like with what
> happens typically with PowerPoint slides).
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 6/11/13 10:53 AM, "Duff Johnson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>>> ... I attempted
>>> to fix the reading order manually and ran into two recurring issues.
>>>
>>> 1. I'd be in the process of changing the order, and then suddenly
>>> tags I
>>> already moved, would rearrange themselves.
>>
>> Almost certainly, because you were making adjustments using the Touch Up
>> Reading Order Tool (TUROT) after having made changes using the Tags panel.
>>
>> This sort of procedure is a no-no because the Touch Up Reading Order Tool
>> modifies both content reading order and tags simultaneously.
>>
>> If you do use the TUROT then you pretty much have to do a 2nd pass in the
>> tags panel to clean up the problems you've induced with the TUROT.
>>
>> I generally advise users to avoid this tool, especially on very complex
>> pages, and focus on the tags instead.
>>
>> Duff.
>> >> >> >
> > >

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 10:48AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Unfortunately for many of us, we don’t have the luxury of selecting one
set of guidelines based on the type of software something is. I think this
would be both awesome and horrible, but that’s a conversation for another
day. :)

As Duff pointed out, it’s intended for people who are using something that
doesn’t understand tags. One could argue that this is necessary to conform
to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d), .22
(d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and Health and Human
Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).

Further, one could argue that this has something to do with WCAG 2.0
(1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence).

I don’t think that it’s an unnecessary step. While it seems logical to
think that we’re pulling out our hair for “old tech”, a perfect example
happened to me only a couple years ago. When I tried to make a subway map
accessible, John Brandt from jebsweb was nice enough to point out that he
wasn’t able to use the Reading Order to make any sense of it since he was
using Preview. I don’t use Preview, but I think that it still can’t
understand tags. That’s a pretty common tech that falls under this
category.

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 11:38AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Jonathan,

we all have to choose which battle we are going to fight in the long run:

- waste precious resources on outdated provisions

- focus on being efficient (good effort result ratio) and effective (achieve the actual goal = make as much content as accessible to as many people as possible)


I consider any guidelines that try to enforce "TUROT reading order" (while they are understandable from a history point of view) to be highly irresponsible, as they enforce counterproductive use of resources that are scarce already.


Olaf


On 11 Jun 2013, at 18:48, Jonathan Metz wrote:

> Unfortunately for many of us, we don’t have the luxury of selecting one
> set of guidelines based on the type of software something is. I think this
> would be both awesome and horrible, but that’s a conversation for another
> day. :)
>
> As Duff pointed out, it’s intended for people who are using something that
> doesn’t understand tags. One could argue that this is necessary to conform
> to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d), .22
> (d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and Health and Human
> Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
> 1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).
>
> Further, one could argue that this has something to do with WCAG 2.0
> (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence).
>
> I don’t think that it’s an unnecessary step. While it seems logical to
> think that we’re pulling out our hair for “old tech”, a perfect example
> happened to me only a couple years ago. When I tried to make a subway map
> accessible, John Brandt from jebsweb was nice enough to point out that he
> wasn’t able to use the Reading Order to make any sense of it since he was
> using Preview. I don’t use Preview, but I think that it still can’t
> understand tags. That’s a pretty common tech that falls under this
> category.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/11/13 11:50 AM, "Olaf Drümmer" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> According the PDF/UA standard, it is only the content order as defined in
>> the tagging structure that counts.
>>
>> The relevance of Touch Up Reading Order Tool (TUROT) is essentially a
>> thing of the past, and only served to compensate for a not well
>> implemented feature known as reflow in Acrobat / Adobe Reader. As it is
>> failing to be useful most of the time anyway once you use it for
>> non-trivial page content - TUROT order in place or not - it is not really
>> worth taking into account anymore.
>>
>> Today's noteworthy reflow tools only look at the tagging order (check out
>> callas pdfGoHTML as one option, or check out the upcoming PDF reader for
>> visually impaired people, from one of the Swiss organisations for blind
>> and visually impaired people -
>> http://www.szb.ch/presse/mitteilungen/erster-pdf-reader-fuer-sehbehinderte
>> .html in German - use
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.szb.ch/presse/mitteil
>> ungen/erster-pdf-reader-fuer-sehbehinderte.html&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb
>> =1&ie=UTF-8 as a Google Translate based rough translation - scheduled to
>> ship June 24, 2013, for Mac and Windows, free of charge, and supposedly
>> going to be available in German, French, Italian and English).
>>
>> So say bye-bye to TUROT and Acrobat reflow, focus on getting your tagging
>> order right and have a productive life again, and use PDF reading tools
>> that work well...
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 17:19, Jonathan Metz wrote:
>>
>>> It happens when not using TUROT too. If a user moves content around in
>>> the
>>> Reading Order (RO), then tags get moved around as well. If a user
>>> mistakenly moves content up (instead of down) in the RO, then they run
>>> into another issue of having content physically hidden in the real
>>> content
>>> of the page (does this section have a technical name?).
>>>
>>> I always been told that making adjustments to the Reading Order was an
>>> essential part of fixing a page. Are you saying that the reading order
>>> not
>>> matter then, if we just focus on the tags? This goes against everything
>>> I¹ve learned in marking up a page.
>>>
>>> I¹ve sort of approached the Reading Order panel as knowing the best way
>>> to
>>> adjust the content on that page before ever opening the Tags Panel
>>> (unless
>>> there are elements that should not have been made tags like with what
>>> happens typically with PowerPoint slides).
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> On 6/11/13 10:53 AM, "Duff Johnson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ... I attempted
>>>>> to fix the reading order manually and ran into two recurring issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I'd be in the process of changing the order, and then suddenly
>>>>> tags I
>>>>> already moved, would rearrange themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Almost certainly, because you were making adjustments using the Touch
>>>> Up
>>>> Reading Order Tool (TUROT) after having made changes using the Tags
>>>> panel.
>>>>
>>>> This sort of procedure is a no-no because the Touch Up Reading Order
>>>> Tool
>>>> modifies both content reading order and tags simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> If you do use the TUROT then you pretty much have to do a 2nd pass in
>>>> the
>>>> tags panel to clean up the problems you've induced with the TUROT.
>>>>
>>>> I generally advise users to avoid this tool, especially on very complex
>>>> pages, and focus on the tags instead.
>>>>
>>>> Duff.
>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >>
>> >> >> >
> > >

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 11:49AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

> As Duff pointed out, it’s intended for people who are using something that
> doesn’t understand tags. One could argue that this is necessary to conform
> to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d), .22
> (d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and Health and Human
> Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
> 1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).

AT software that can't understand tagged PDF has no access to tables, lists, headings, alt. text etc. in PDF files.

It's kind of like asking websites to deliver good results when read using a text editor.

> Further, one could argue that this has something to do with WCAG 2.0
> (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence).

Yes… 1.3.2 clearly requires tagged PDF. The only (theoretical) exception would be a PDF that is SO simple (no images, artifacts, tables, headings, lists, languages, links, forms, cross-page content, etc, etc) that tags would be literally unnecessary. Kind of equivalent to an HTML page that consists of nothing at all besides text inside <P> tags.

> I don’t think that it’s an unnecessary step. While it seems logical to
> think that we’re pulling out our hair for “old tech”, a perfect example
> happened to me only a couple years ago. When I tried to make a subway map
> accessible, John Brandt from jebsweb was nice enough to point out that he
> wasn’t able to use the Reading Order to make any sense of it since he was
> using Preview. I don’t use Preview, but I think that it still can’t
> understand tags. That’s a pretty common tech that falls under this
> category.

So, what are you saying… that accessibility efforts must be directed towards the crappiest software in common use?

Why is it OK to take such precious resources and spend them on supporting unfortunately-designed, poor-performing, decade-old software instead of supporting the accessibility mechanism in PDF?

Users who require AT have to acquire AT. Either their AT supports "accessible PDF," or it does not. Coddling software that's not designed or fit for purpose has to end at some point.

Customers will, as ever, get what they *ask* for. If the message received by software producers is fuzzy because lots of people have learned to make-do with the PDF viewer equivalent of IE6 to read modern websites, that's not going to help drive bright, new, cool software.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 2:05PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Duff said:

"So, what are you sayingŠ that accessibility efforts must be directed
towards the crappiest software in common use?²


Sort of. What I¹m saying is that accessibility efforts must not forget
that there are many users not financially/administratively capable of
using anything but the crappiest software in common use.

"Why is it OK to take such precious resources and spend them on supporting
unfortunately-designed, poor-performing, decade-old software instead of
supporting the accessibility mechanism in PDF?²

Because that¹s what people have. Not everyone can run out and buy software
that runs the latest greatest technology out there. Not everyone can go
out and get a new computer every time there is a new technology that is
introduced on the world.


I can easily turn around and ask the same question: Why can¹t developers
adhere to the specifications set forth in these guidelines and make
software that does what it is supposed to do? Why should consumers be
penalized for not wanting to spend oodles of money on upgrades?

"Users who require AT have to acquire AT. Either their AT supports
"accessible PDF," or it does not. Coddling software that's not designed or
fit for purpose has to end at some point.²

That¹s true. But when a user has already spent almost $5000 on a machine
capable of handling that AT, why should they be pressured into spending
more money to handle the latest greatest thing because a bunch of people
want to use the new XYZ technology that slices AND dices. Ensuring
backwards compatibility shouldn¹t be seen as Œcoddling¹. It¹s just
ensuring the same level of access to a wider audience.

"If the message received by software producers is fuzzy because lots of
people have learned to make-do with the PDF viewer equivalent of IE6 to
read modern websites, that's not going to help drive bright, new, cool
software."





That¹s like saying that the reason why some software developers refuse to
make things work correctly is because they¹ve learned since people are
retrofitting things to work the way they should have; so there is no need
to address those issues. The things that help drive bright, new, cool
software are ideas that don't vastly change the way people do things but
presents information in a better way.

Software developers are more inclined to refuse to build things according
to spec because they want to reinvent the wheel and expect everyone else
to jump on board.

Jonathan


On 6/11/13 1:49 PM, "Duff Johnson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>> As Duff pointed out, it¹s intended for people who are using something
>>that
>> doesn¹t understand tags. One could argue that this is necessary to
>>conform
>> to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d),
>>.22
>> (d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran¹s Administration (VA) and Health and
>>Human
>> Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
>> 1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).
>
>AT software that can't understand tagged PDF has no access to tables,
>lists, headings, alt. text etc. in PDF files.
>
>It's kind of like asking websites to deliver good results when read using
>a text editor.
>
>> Further, one could argue that this has something to do with WCAG 2.0
>> (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence).
>
>YesŠ 1.3.2 clearly requires tagged PDF. The only (theoretical) exception
>would be a PDF that is SO simple (no images, artifacts, tables, headings,
>lists, languages, links, forms, cross-page content, etc, etc) that tags
>would be literally unnecessary. Kind of equivalent to an HTML page that
>consists of nothing at all besides text inside <P> tags.
>
>> I don¹t think that it¹s an unnecessary step. While it seems logical to
>> think that we¹re pulling out our hair for ³old tech², a perfect example
>> happened to me only a couple years ago. When I tried to make a subway
>>map
>> accessible, John Brandt from jebsweb was nice enough to point out that
>>he
>> wasn¹t able to use the Reading Order to make any sense of it since he
>>was
>> using Preview. I don¹t use Preview, but I think that it still can¹t
>> understand tags. That¹s a pretty common tech that falls under this
>> category.
>
>So, what are you sayingŠ that accessibility efforts must be directed
>towards the crappiest software in common use?
>
>Why is it OK to take such precious resources and spend them on supporting
>unfortunately-designed, poor-performing, decade-old software instead of
>supporting the accessibility mechanism in PDF?
>
>Users who require AT have to acquire AT. Either their AT supports
>"accessible PDF," or it does not. Coddling software that's not designed
>or fit for purpose has to end at some point.
>
>Customers will, as ever, get what they *ask* for. If the message received
>by software producers is fuzzy because lots of people have learned to
>make-do with the PDF viewer equivalent of IE6 to read modern websites,
>that's not going to help drive bright, new, cool software.
>
>Duff.
>>>

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 2:42PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

... a couple of remarks:

- price of software:
- NVDA: free of charge
- Adobe Reader: free of charge
- VIP-PDF-Reader (to be released June 24, 2013, at www.szb.ch): free of charge
- callas pdfGoHTML: free of charge
(admittedly, and for the time being
while it's not yet Reader enabled,
you also have to own Acrobat Pro)

- adhering to specs:
- the PDF spec encourages developers to make TUROT match logical order but
does not require it, and it clearly states that sometimes it may not be feasible
(and it does state this for a reason)
- PDF/UA also requires correct logical order but not TUROT order

- overall:
- accessible PDF so far has not been a success story
- it has the potential to become a first class citizen in the world of accessible content
BUT ONLY if it is not too difficult to make them
- people who wear the black belt of PDF remediation are not in the best position to
shape the way forward because they don't scale well (and they are potentially biased
because they make a living off of bad PDF under artificially difficult conditions)
- instead creation of accessible PDF must be democratized
(it must become easy for every document creator to produce an accessible PDF,
insisting on TUROT order will substantially slow that down)


Just my 2 cents....

Olaf

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 4:57PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Olaf Drümmer wrote:


>- NVDA: free of charge

Only works on PC (for now?)

>- Adobe Reader: free of charge

Doesn¹t come installed on a Mac, considered by some to be the cats pajamas
of accessibility.

>- callas pdfGoHTML: free of charge (admittedly, and for the time being
>while it's not yet Reader enabled, you also have to own Acrobat Pro)

Totally awesome software making Acrobat Pro better than it is.

>- accessible PDF so far has not been a success story

Isn¹t it premature to make this statement? Isn¹t it less than a year old?

>- it has the potential to become a first class citizen in the world of
>accessible content BUT ONLY if it is not too difficult to make them

It¹s only difficult to make it if the software lacks in some fashion.

>- people who wear the black belt of PDF remediation are not in the best
>position to shape the way forward...

There is very little one ever has to worry about that. People who excel at
remediation have little to no ability to shape the way forward. We are at
the mercy of the governments and corporations that dictate which
provisions we must follow.

>...they are potentially biased because they make a living off of bad PDF
>under artificially difficult conditions)

Not sure I understand this statement?

>- instead creation of accessible PDF must be democratized (it must become
>easy for every document creator to produce an accessible PDF,

To assume that software will ever be able to 100% create accessible
content some how according to the various specs is not practical. Software
currently cannot handle all the various manual things that a user must do
to ensure accessibility.

>insisting on TUROT order will substantially slow that down)

100% agree. Unfortunately, people who create accessible content are at the
mercy of the laws and provisions of the land. It¹s easy for you to say to
ignore it, but for those of us with Federal contracts, it isn¹t so easy...

Jonathan

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 5:26PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Olaf wrote: "accessible PDF so far has not been a success story."
Jonathan replied: "Isn¹t it premature to make this statement? Isn¹t it less
than a year old?"

What's less than a year old?
Acrobat itself and the PDF standard were created in the late 1980s and
released to the public in 1993, 20 years ago.
Accessibility tools first appeared in Acrobat 6 (pdf spec 1.5) in 2003, 10
years ago, although they were marginal.
Significant accessibility tools appeared in Acrobat 8 (pdf spec 1.7) in
2006, and more tools/features have been added to every version since.

I think Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and all the other big industry players
should have done a better job by now of providing a coordinated set of tools
and standards for accessibility.

Going back to Olaf's comment, "accessible PDF so far has not been a success
story."

It depends, Olaf, on how the original source document was created. When we
create a well-built and structured Word, PowerPoint, or InDesign source
file, the resulting PDF has few flaws that need fixing in Acrobat Pro. None
of my testers complain about those PDFs.

So the argument goes back to: how do we get users to create good,
well-structured, correctly tagged/styled source documents which then create
good, well-structured, correctly tagged PDFs?

Better tools in the source programs is critical, but the biggest hurdle is
teaching the ordinary, everyday Word user how to use MS Word correctly! Very
few know how to use paragraph styles, and styles are the central part of a
tagged, accessible PDF...or EPUB, or XML file, or HTML file, or whatever
digital media file will be the final presentation to the end-user.

So, educating users in the basics of accessibility and MS Word is step #1.
And some of us on this list are doing that training, but with a lingering
world-wide recession and economic failure, budgets for training are
virtually nil at all government agencies, their contractors and suppliers,
and educational institutions. Everyone's expected to know MS Word, but in
reality they don't.

—Bevi Chagnon
—
www.PubCom.com — Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 5:32PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Chagnon | PubCom" wrote:


>What's less than a year old?
>Acrobat itself and the PDF standard were created in the late 1980s and
>released to the public in 1993, 20 years ago.
>Accessibility tools first appeared in Acrobat 6 (pdf spec 1.5) in 2003,
>10 years ago, although they were marginal.
>Significant accessibility tools appeared in Acrobat 8 (pdf spec 1.7) in
>2006, and more tools/features have been added to every version since.

Sorry, I should have clarified PDF/UA. Not PDF 1.7.


Jonathan

From: Williams, William R -FS
Date: Tue, Jun 11 2013 5:47PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Budgets for the federal agencies are indeed 'shrinking,' but there is growing awareness among employees and contractors of the need to produce accessible Word docs ... of the need to produce accessible electronic documents.

What's missing is ownership and management accountability for this responsibility.

Bill Williams
Communications Specialist

U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Region
1323 Club Drive
Vallejo CA 94592

http://www.fs.usda.gov/r5
707.562.9005

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Wed, Jun 12 2013 1:53AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Just to really make this clear...:

- in 2001 the first version of PDF (1.4) and Acrobat (Acrobat 5) were released that defined/supported tagged PDF
- tagged PDF is the basis for accessible PDF, and has some conceptual similarities to tags in HTML
- tools to create tagged PDF emerged over time, some significant dates being
- 2002 FrameMaker
- 2007 Microsoft Office
- 2008 OpenOffice
- in 2001 Adobe InDesign CS5.5 was released, with tagged PDF creation support that made it relatively easy for the average user to create tagged PDF
- in 2008 PDF was released as an ISO standard (ISO 32000-1), after in 2007 Adobe had indicated they'd be interested in handing further development of and control over the PDF format over to ISO
- in 2012 a tagged PDF based standard that defines accessible PDF was published by ISO and is called PDF/UA (ISO 14289-1).

With my statement (accessible PDF not being a success story yet) I referred to the time between 2001 and now.

---

A major pain point for a long time has been that the quality of tagged PDF export (and features helping in the preparation of a document for tagged PDF export) has been so flawed, that it was (and still) often is necessary to do extensive fixing after the tagged PDF has been created (and many users do this in Acrobat, which in itself has numerous unfortunate limitations in the 'tag fixing' area). If Microsoft Word and PowerPoint did at least an OK job at producing tagged PDF, life would be so much easier (just think if the fact that all images tend to jump to the beginning of the document, or the fact that doing decent structuring in PowerPoint is a nightmare). Adobe Indesign made a lot of progress in CS 5.5, but for non-trivial documents it is still highly flawed or limited. Even FrameMaker - a highly structured document creation tool - 11 years later - is still in a sad state when it comes to decently tagged PDF (how embarrassing is that? Just think of all the product docu
mentation that could actually be useful for everyone if only someone got their act together...).

Some developers have offered add-on tools that work around ugly problems in programs, and make creation of well tagged PDF feasible for the average user (tools like axesPDF for Word, CommonLook Office for Microsoft Office, axaio MadeToTag for InDesign). More modern and powerful AT is also emerging, not relying on crude hacks (like TUROT order) anymore but taking tagged PDF serious (like NVDA or the soon to be released VIP-PDF Reader).

For the upcoming more modern technology (creation, reading, and assistive technology) to be economically viable, it is key to leave all the weird stuff behind and to get it right on the conceptual level as much as possible. TUROT order cannot and must not be part of a brighter future, it eats away too much from the few precious resources that are available. Bad tools and processes must be left behind, they are a plague for everyone, and block the overall effort from being effective.

Olaf


On 12 Jun 2013, at 01:32, Jonathan Metz wrote:

> Chagnon | PubCom" wrote:
>
>
>> What's less than a year old?
>> Acrobat itself and the PDF standard were created in the late 1980s and
>> released to the public in 1993, 20 years ago.
>> Accessibility tools first appeared in Acrobat 6 (pdf spec 1.5) in 2003,
>> 10 years ago, although they were marginal.
>> Significant accessibility tools appeared in Acrobat 8 (pdf spec 1.7) in
>> 2006, and more tools/features have been added to every version since.
>
> Sorry, I should have clarified PDF/UA. Not PDF 1.7.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> > >

From: TX Knight
Date: Wed, Jun 12 2013 9:01AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

> The only other tool I am aware of to edit the tags in a tagged PDF is
"CommonLook PDF" from
> NetCentric (cf. http://www.commonlook.com/CommonLook-PDF ). I have used
it only briefly
> (so I can't comment how useful it is for real work), but it does not seem
to suffer from the
> Acrobat Pro problems mention (which are a well known limitation of
Acrobat Pro).

>
> ~Olaf Drümmer”



Thanks Olaf. I’ll look into it.


>Almost certainly, because you were making adjustments using the Touch Up
Reading Order
> Tool (TUROT) after having made changes using the Tags panel…

>

> ~Duff Johnson”



Technically, no. At least in the instance I am remembering, TUROT was open
so I could visually see the order. But all of the adjustments were being
done via the RO panel.


> Yes, that happens in the RO panel. Adjusting the sequence in the panel
often causes one
> element to become hidden behind another. Solution: find the hidden item
in the RO's
> panel on the left, and drag-and-drop it before the item that's hiding it.

>

>~Bevi Chagnon”



Interesting. I'll give that a try next time.



Thanks all!

~Sam

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Wed, Jun 12 2013 9:56AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Just a few corrections about InDesign...
Olaf wrote: "in 2001 Adobe InDesign CS5.5 was released, with tagged PDF
creation support that made it relatively easy for the average user to create
tagged PDF."

InDesign version 1.5 (not CS 5.5) was released in 2001, and I don't recall
it having XML/tagged PDF support in that version. And when a topic takes
12-18 hours of classroom time to teach, I wouldn't call it "relatively easy
for the average user."

I started creating tagged accessible PDFs from InDesign CS4 (version 6)
which was released in 2008. I think the feature might have been available in
CS3 (version 5) but wasn't really a workable tool in that version.

CS 5.5 (version 7.5, released in 2011) greatly improved InDesign's tools to
create a tagged PDF (namely lists, tables of content, anchored graphics).
But InDesign was — and still is today — an imperfect set of tools for
creating accessible PDFs.

InDesign CC (aka CS7, version 9) will be released this coming Monday, June
17. I'll let you know then about any new accessibility tools, features, and
improvements.

—Bevi Chagnon
- - -
www.PubCom.com — Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
The 508 Workshop tour in 2013 — www.Workshop.PubCom.com

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Wed, Jun 12 2013 9:44PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Jon said:
> One could argue that this is necessary to conform
> to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d), .22
> (d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and Health and Human
> Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
> 1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).

While I can only speak about HHS' checklist (
http://www.hhs.gov/web/508/accessiblefiles/checklistpdf.html), I would say
we go beyond the the basics, unless i am missing your point.

Duff said:
> So, what are you saying… that accessibility efforts must be directed
towards the crappiest software in common use?

In the government realm there is a whole different set of rules. The free
software that Olaf mentioned may be up to date with the PDF Standard better
than Acrobat, but it often fails in other critical areas. Such as, can the
company support a client that has 10k+ users, has it gone through the
various security checks, and does the software play nice with enterprise
management tools, such as SCCM? Often enough, the answers to one or more of
those questions is no. If that is the case, the product cannot be used. The
question can be flipped, why is Acrobat saying it is up to date, but still
runs on 10 year old stuff?

--
Ryan E. Benson


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> > As Duff pointed out, it’s intended for people who are using something
> that
> > doesn’t understand tags. One could argue that this is necessary to
> conform
> > to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d),
> .22
> > (d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran’s Administration (VA) and Health and Human
> > Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
> > 1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).
>
> AT software that can't understand tagged PDF has no access to tables,
> lists, headings, alt. text etc. in PDF files.
>
> It's kind of like asking websites to deliver good results when read using
> a text editor.
>
> > Further, one could argue that this has something to do with WCAG 2.0
> > (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence).
>
> Yes… 1.3.2 clearly requires tagged PDF. The only (theoretical) exception
> would be a PDF that is SO simple (no images, artifacts, tables, headings,
> lists, languages, links, forms, cross-page content, etc, etc) that tags
> would be literally unnecessary. Kind of equivalent to an HTML page that
> consists of nothing at all besides text inside <P> tags.
>
> > I don’t think that it’s an unnecessary step. While it seems logical to
> > think that we’re pulling out our hair for “old tech”, a perfect example
> > happened to me only a couple years ago. When I tried to make a subway map
> > accessible, John Brandt from jebsweb was nice enough to point out that he
> > wasn’t able to use the Reading Order to make any sense of it since he was
> > using Preview. I don’t use Preview, but I think that it still can’t
> > understand tags. That’s a pretty common tech that falls under this
> > category.
>
> So, what are you saying… that accessibility efforts must be directed
> towards the crappiest software in common use?
>
> Why is it OK to take such precious resources and spend them on supporting
> unfortunately-designed, poor-performing, decade-old software instead of
> supporting the accessibility mechanism in PDF?
>
> Users who require AT have to acquire AT. Either their AT supports
> "accessible PDF," or it does not. Coddling software that's not designed or
> fit for purpose has to end at some point.
>
> Customers will, as ever, get what they *ask* for. If the message received
> by software producers is fuzzy because lots of people have learned to
> make-do with the PDF viewer equivalent of IE6 to read modern websites,
> that's not going to help drive bright, new, cool software.
>
> Duff.
> > > >

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Wed, Jun 12 2013 11:28PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

So everybody may be forced to create documents in an inefficient manner just to allow government not to get their act together? Isn't that the tail wagging the dog?

And whose government is it - ours or somebody else's?

Olaf

On 13 Jun 2013, at 05:44, Ryan E. Benson wrote:

> Such as, can the
> company support a client that has 10k+ users, has it gone through the
> various security checks, and does the software play nice with enterprise
> management tools, such as SCCM?

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Thu, Jun 13 2013 7:29AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

"Ryan E. Benson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:


>While I can only speak about HHS' checklist (
>http://www.hhs.gov/web/508/accessiblefiles/checklistpdf.html), I would
>say we go beyond the the basics, unless i am missing your point.

Yes, that actually was my point. The problem is, as Olaf and Duff point
out, forcing some sort of structure that can be understood by software
that can¹t understand tagged PDF misses the point of creating something
specifically for Assistive Technology.

It¹s one thing to go above and beyond like one would with WCAG 2.0 AAA,
but government requirements don¹t let contractors do that. And that is my
point overall. While I agree that using the RO is a horrible idea, there¹s
nothing I can do about it, and Duff and Olaf recommending to people that
they don¹t use it because it isn¹t necessary for AT is the same as telling
people to ignore their client¹s requests.

What I¹d rather is a happy medium, or this:

>The question can be flipped, why is Acrobat saying it is up to date, but
>still runs on 10 year old stuff?

^^ +1!


-Jonathan
>--
>Ryan E. Benson
>
>
>On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>wrote:
>
>> > As Duff pointed out, it¹s intended for people who are using something
>> that
>> > doesn¹t understand tags. One could argue that this is necessary to
>> conform
>> > to many provisions of Section 508 here in the US, such as 1194.21 (d),
>> .22
>> > (d), .31 (a). Both the Veteran¹s Administration (VA) and Health and
>>Human
>> > Services (HHS) discuss these requirements in their PDF checklists (VA:
>> > 1194.31 (a.18), 1194.22 (d.21) and HHS: 1.0 (12) and 3.0 (22)).
>>
>> AT software that can't understand tagged PDF has no access to tables,
>> lists, headings, alt. text etc. in PDF files.
>>
>> It's kind of like asking websites to deliver good results when read
>>using
>> a text editor.
>>
>> > Further, one could argue that this has something to do with WCAG 2.0
>> > (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence).
>>
>> YesŠ 1.3.2 clearly requires tagged PDF. The only (theoretical) exception
>> would be a PDF that is SO simple (no images, artifacts, tables,
>>headings,
>> lists, languages, links, forms, cross-page content, etc, etc) that tags
>> would be literally unnecessary. Kind of equivalent to an HTML page that
>> consists of nothing at all besides text inside <P> tags.
>>
>> > I don¹t think that it¹s an unnecessary step. While it seems logical to
>> > think that we¹re pulling out our hair for ³old tech², a perfect
>>example
>> > happened to me only a couple years ago. When I tried to make a subway
>>map
>> > accessible, John Brandt from jebsweb was nice enough to point out
>>that he
>> > wasn¹t able to use the Reading Order to make any sense of it since he
>>was
>> > using Preview. I don¹t use Preview, but I think that it still can¹t
>> > understand tags. That¹s a pretty common tech that falls under this
>> > category.
>>
>> So, what are you sayingŠ that accessibility efforts must be directed
>> towards the crappiest software in common use?
>>
>> Why is it OK to take such precious resources and spend them on
>>supporting
>> unfortunately-designed, poor-performing, decade-old software instead of
>> supporting the accessibility mechanism in PDF?
>>
>> Users who require AT have to acquire AT. Either their AT supports
>> "accessible PDF," or it does not. Coddling software that's not designed
>>or
>> fit for purpose has to end at some point.
>>
>> Customers will, as ever, get what they *ask* for. If the message
>>received
>> by software producers is fuzzy because lots of people have learned to
>> make-do with the PDF viewer equivalent of IE6 to read modern websites,
>> that's not going to help drive bright, new, cool software.
>>
>> Duff.
>> >> >> >>
>>>

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Thu, Jun 13 2013 7:42AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Olaf Drümmer" wrote:


>So everybody may be forced to create documents in an inefficient manner
>just to allow government not to get their act together? Isn't that the
>tail wagging the dog?

This is a situation individuals in a service industry have to deal with
with clients. If you work in a product-oriented business, all you have to
deal with is clients choosing to purchase and use your product. I think
that¹s where a lot of this disagreement stems from. It seems like you want
to make sure that software (hardware?) such as authoring tools and PDF
editors play well with the specifications. But those of us in the service
industry are left to pick up the pieces when policy-makers step in and set
forth the rules and regulations for making something work for everyone.

So, yes, that is often the case.

>And whose government is it - ours or somebody else's?

It¹s ŒYours'. The problem is, contractors become extensions of their
clients. Whether it¹s for accessibility or some other non-government
function. We have to make sure we adhere to the standards, rules, and
regulations of our clients, which in the case of using the Reading Order
tool, is the government.

The RO has been a requirement for (Bevi might know the answer to this one
;) ) who knows how long, but Adobe has yet to ever make it work for us,
either by using that horrible panel or exporting directly from their
sister products. It does no good to say that, ³Well it doesn¹t fit with my
interpretation for accessibility policy, so I advise against ever using
it.²

Jonathan


>On 13 Jun 2013, at 05:44, Ryan E. Benson wrote:
>
>> Such as, can the
>> company support a client that has 10k+ users, has it gone through the
>> various security checks, and does the software play nice with enterprise
>> management tools, such as SCCM?
>
>>>

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Thu, Jun 13 2013 9:06AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Olaf wrote: " And whose government is it - ours or somebody else's?"

Can't say for other countries, but from my perch here in Washington DC it's
looking like my U.S. government is owned by major money, like the Koch
brothers who contributed to the campaigns of more than 50% of our
Congressional members (both houses, all parties). They are tied for the 4th
wealthiest people in the US (Forbes List) and they fund nonprofits,
political action committees, legislation, lawsuits, TV stations, radio
stations, newspapers, and the libertarian party.

Given that their view of libertarianism is more like corporatism, I would
not be surprised to see them fund actions that would rescind Sec. 508 and
other similar legislation because their mantra is to "rid business of the
tyranny of government regulations" and "get government off our backs." Sec.
508 is a package of government regulations and, following their logic, if
regs increase the financial burden on corporations, the regs then force them
to reduce their operating costs by a) cutting jobs, or b) outsourcing jobs
overseas. So the threat of losing jobs often is used to counter regulatory
efforts.

Doesn't matter what the regulation is regulating: environment, health,
worker safety, or accessibility. If they don't like the reg, they now have
the financial power, politicians, and duped population that they can
threaten to take their ball and play in someone else's court. Or country.

-Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Thu, Jun 13 2013 9:34AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

Speaking as a libertarian, I guess it¹s all my fault then. We¹re just
money-grubbing jerks out to nickel and dime the American people. Man, we
must be so transparent for you to figure us out!

I will admit that THEIR view of libertarian philosophy is far more
Consequentialist than my quasi-Contractarian philosophy, but lumping the
government into one bucket of political thought is erroneous and silly.
The truth is the government is made up of a large entity of individuals.
The majority are out there for personal gain, but I doubt very seriously
it can easily be blamed on one group of people.

-Jonathan





On 6/13/13 11:06 AM, "Chagnon | PubCom" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>Olaf wrote: " And whose government is it - ours or somebody else's?"
>
>Can't say for other countries, but from my perch here in Washington DC
>it's
>looking like my U.S. government is owned by major money, like the Koch
>brothers who contributed to the campaigns of more than 50% of our
>Congressional members (both houses, all parties). They are tied for the
>4th
>wealthiest people in the US (Forbes List) and they fund nonprofits,
>political action committees, legislation, lawsuits, TV stations, radio
>stations, newspapers, and the libertarian party.
>
>Given that their view of libertarianism is more like corporatism, I would
>not be surprised to see them fund actions that would rescind Sec. 508 and
>other similar legislation because their mantra is to "rid business of the
>tyranny of government regulations" and "get government off our backs."
>Sec.
>508 is a package of government regulations and, following their logic, if
>regs increase the financial burden on corporations, the regs then force
>them
>to reduce their operating costs by a) cutting jobs, or b) outsourcing jobs
>overseas. So the threat of losing jobs often is used to counter regulatory
>efforts.
>
>Doesn't matter what the regulation is regulating: environment, health,
>worker safety, or accessibility. If they don't like the reg, they now have
>the financial power, politicians, and duped population that they can
>threaten to take their ball and play in someone else's court. Or country.
>
>-Bevi Chagnon
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>-
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
>Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
>Accessibility.
>New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.
>
>
>>>

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Thu, Jun 13 2013 10:30AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 13 Jun 2013, at 15:42, Jonathan Metz wrote:

> This is a situation individuals in a service industry have to deal with
> with clients. If you work in a product-oriented business, all you have to
> deal with is clients choosing to purchase and use your product. I think
> that¹s where a lot of this disagreement stems from.

there is a lot of truth in your statement...

On 13 Jun 2013, at 15:29, Jonathan Metz wrote:

> and Duff and Olaf recommending to people that
> they don¹t use it because it isn¹t necessary for AT is the same as telling
> people to ignore their client¹s requests.

... but what if your customers could find out that by doing smart adjustments to the rules they dictate, they could get more (documents that are accessible) for less (money), while still achieving the goal (serving everybody equally well, whether blond, bald, handicapped in some fashion or what else). It has to be kept in mind that the money being moved around are tax dollars (or tax Euros, or) - and that in the end is our money. I would like to see my money used wisely.


On 13 Jun 2013, at 17:06, Chagnon | PubCom wrote:

> if regs increase the financial burden on corporations, the regs then force them
> to reduce their operating costs

so why not adjust the rules so they become less of a burden (and are still useful) - as in: work smarter, not harder... ;-)

Olaf

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Thu, Jun 13 2013 10:34AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

>> While I can only speak about HHS' checklist (
>> http://www.hhs.gov/web/508/accessiblefiles/checklistpdf.html), I would
>> say we go beyond the the basics, unless i am missing your point.

I looked at these "guidelines" again. I feel these have changed since I last checked them.

Please tell me where you see requirements specific to content reading order (as opposed to tags).

- Item 3.3 specifies tags
- Item 3.5 can readily be interpreted to be about tags (it even mentions tables!)

> Yes, that actually was my point. The problem is, as Olaf and Duff point
> out, forcing some sort of structure that can be understood by software
> that can¹t understand tagged PDF misses the point of creating something
> specifically for Assistive Technology.

Not only does it miss the point - it's actively counter-productive, because the time taken to fix a PDF so that it "works" for technology that doesn't understand tags is *exactly* the same time that could otherwise be used to make more PDF files accessible, cut the cost of remediation, or whatever.

> It¹s one thing to go above and beyond like one would with WCAG 2.0 AAA,
> but government requirements don¹t let contractors do that.

In my years of selling accessible PDF services to Federal government agencies and contractors I can attest that I only lost this "customer education" argument twice.

In other words, almost every time I took to time to explain the realities to my client - especially the part about how insisting that the PDF be readable when "reflowed" on random cell-phones - can dramatically reduce the number of files that can be handled in the existing budget - I won the argument.

> And that is my
> point overall. While I agree that using the RO is a horrible idea, there¹s
> nothing I can do about it

Educate the customer.

Customers aren't that dumb. If they can understand why old browsers can't handle a modern website they can usually understand that X, Y or Z software doesn't (yet) support accessible PDF.

…especially if the applicable regulations don't actually require content reading order adjustments!

> , and Duff and Olaf recommending to people that
> they don¹t use it because it isn¹t necessary for AT is the same as telling
> people to ignore their client¹s requests.

See above. I've sold PDF accessibility services since 2001. I have almost always won this argument (2 exceptions). We were always paid (no exceptions) for our work.

Now… if someone demanded that the PDF file work with technology that doesn't support accessible PDF; that's OK - we'd do that. I think at DSI we called it "Phone-optimized PDF" or some such. It was more expensive (of course), and much less popular. Plus, we would (often, not always) require the customer to acknowledge that they were requesting features beyond those required to enable accessibility.

> What I¹d rather is a happy medium, or this:
>
>> The question can be flipped, why is Acrobat saying it is up to date, but
>> still runs on 10 year old stuff?
>
> ^^ +1!

Ahhh.

Now, that's a good question.

The answer is: they (Adobe) don't hear (enough) from customers about what a bummer it is that Reflow doesn't use tags.

Apparently there are lots of customers who are grateful for this 10 year old software... and don't know what they could have… so they never ask.

You, however, do know what you could have.

- Ask for better: contact Adobe and tell them how you feel the product should change.
- Educate the customer about the realities (so they know what to ask for as well).

Adobe, like other software developers, pays attention to what their customers say, but also to what their customers do *not* say.

Duff.

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Thu, Jun 13 2013 11:34PM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

<< Jonathan wrote: "Speaking as a libertarian, I guess it¹s all my fault
then. We¹re just money-grubbing jerks out to nickel and dime the American
people."

Well, if you say so, Jonathan. Those were not my words or thoughts at all.
I do not equate what the Koch brothers are doing with libertarianism. It's
far from that! It's more like what can they do to make their company more
profitable, using the cover of political parties for their gain.

But let's bring this discussion back to accessibility and away from
political parties.

I view accessibility as a way to include people into society and give them
equal access, rights, etc. Here's my first-person experience with exclusion,
the opposite of accessibility.

Here in my home town of Washington, DC, we receive millions of visitors from
around the country. A lot of those visitors come to make their opinions
known, either through visiting their Senators and Congressional reps on
Capitol Hill, or joining a formal protest, march on the Mall, or other
event. Good for them. I may not agree with their opinion, but I do agree
with their right to voice it.

Over the past 10 years, I've seen some behavior that is divisive and
frightening. Our visitors are carrying hate signs around town. I walk out of
an ordinary office building in downtown DC, heading out to lunch, and I'm
nearly run down by a man carrying a sign that says "God Hates Blacks."
Another time I'm eating dinner at a restaurant and someone's wearing a
t-shirt that says "God Hates Gays." Then it's a baseball cap with "God Hates
Obama."

It has to be 2-3 dozen times I've seen a visitor wearing something that says
"God Hates Fill-in-the-blank." I wonder, how long will it be before I see a
sign that says "God Hates Italians" my ethic heritage? Or "God Hates People
in Wheelchairs." Or people who are disabled and walk too slow and get in the
way. Or people who are blind. Who's going to be attacked next in a hate
sign?

And who's god is going around hating various classes of people? Not mine,
that's for sure.

A couple of years ago I was waiting at a crosswalk in downtown DC about 2
blocks from the White House, and on the opposite side of the street a senior
couple was also waiting with their young grandson who held a sign that said
"God Hates Jews." It was a well-made sign, professionally printed from a
$10/foot wide-format printer used for posters and banners. This was not a
hand-lettered sign tacked onto a scrap piece of wood. Someone paid a good
$15-20 to have this professional sign made.

The walk light came on and half-way across the street we passed. And I
stopped and asked, "I'm curious about your sign. Would you tell me more
about why you think that?" And in a few minutes, I learned that a) they're
scared about the economy, b) they traveled from the mid-west for a protest
on the Mall in DC, c) they couldn't afford the trip so the caravan of busses
was arranged and paid for by their local organization, d) they were given
the sign by the organization. The organization arranged this hate-fest?
Americans for Prosperity, which is funded nearly entirely by just 2 people.

Exclusion, hate, and anti-government are being heavily funded, and it's more
than just 2 grandparents holding a fancy hate sign.

As I said previously, it doesn't matter what the regulation is regulating:
environment, health, worker safety, or accessibility. If they don't like the
reg, they now
have the financial power, politicians, and public opinion to do what they
want.

I'll let you know when I spot the sign that says "God Hates Section 508 and
all those disabled freeloaders who live off our tax dollars."

—Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com — Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Fri, Jun 14 2013 7:15AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →

I think I’d be okay with a sign that said “God Hates the Reading Order
Panel"

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Jun 14 2013 8:05AM
Subject: Re: A better PDF editor for accessibility?
← Previous message | No next message

Touché, Jonathan!
—Bevi