E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: Nasrin Saef
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2014 2:00AM
Subject: PDF forms: all form field-related information read out twice
No previous message | Next message →

Hello list,

I have a questioning concerning accessible pdf forms and I'd be really
grateful for any suggestions you can make. (As for my background: I'm
responsible for ensuring the accessibility of my agency's documents, but
I'm relatively new to the field. So while I do think I got the basics,
there probably are plenty of use cases I just don't think about yet).

When creating a pdf form, so far I went through two basic steps:

- create a tagged pdf from a well-formatted word document with blank
space for the form fields
- add the form fields in Acrobat, include tool tips and put the form
tags on them

Now there are two ways I can see of accessing the form:

1. simply read everything, either from the beginning or from any other
point of the form (page, bookmark, etc.)
2. tab through the form fields

The latter is not a problem - I've included tool tips that always give
enough information to know which part of the form the user is in and, of
course, what information to enter into the field.
But because of that, the former is problematic. Currently, the text in the
document is tagged, and the form fields have tool tips - both are read out.
This results in voice feedback like this: "Name. Form field 'Name of the
institution'. Empty.", or "Contact me by: Radio button 'phone' phone. Radio
button 'email' email." etc. This can range from being mildy annoying for
short descriptions like the ones given above, and a real pain for a
selection between 20 radio buttons some of which have pretty long names
(real example and no way around it).

So, is there any way to avoid this? Removing the content tags which include
the names of the form fields works (then only the tool tip is read out),
but I'm worried there are situations in which these would be necessary and
I might involutarily render my form inaccessible. Are there other ways
people access forms that I haven't thought about?

Let me finish by saying I'm really glad this list exists, since I started
working in the field I've found quite the big amount of good hints, useful
links and insightful discussions here!

Regards
Nasrin

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2014 2:36AM
Subject: Re: PDF forms: all form field-related information read out twice
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello Nasrin,

On 24 Jun 2014, at 10:00, Nasrin Saef < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Currently, the text in the
> document is tagged, and the form fields have tool tips - both are read out.

this is a matter of how assistive technology presents this.

The underlying problem is as follows:
- if a user steps through just the form fields, without reading the content around a field, all the user might have access to is the 'tool tip'; I guess this would be considered useful and appropriate from an accessibility point of view
- if a user sequentially reads the document, she will read the usual content - the text before and after form fields, which usually contains enough information to understand the form fields - but possibly will also be presented the tool tip. The presentation of the tool tip nevertheless is a function of the assistive technology used. If that assistive technology happens to be a screen reader for blind or low vision users, this can indeed be annoying, though most screen readers also have features to skip pieces of information being presented. A good screen reader would also have an option to skip tool tips when reading in sequential mode. One could think of other types of assistive technology, e.g. for dyslexic users, where current text might be displayed selectively in small portions (to visually read), and upon encountering a form field, the tool tip might read out loud in addition to the visual display.

All in all I'd say that duplication of information in regular page content and - in this case - in the tool tips for form fields is a good thing, and it is up to the tool being used to do the right thing. Also please keep in mind that when thinking of assistive technology not to always only think of screen readers. Blind and low vision users are a relatively small percentage of people with disabilities (in other words: there are lots of people with different needs).

Olaf

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2014 4:37AM
Subject: Re: PDF forms: all form field-related information read outtwice
← Previous message | Next message →

In looking at your process, keep in mind that when creating forms, you add
the form controls before you tab the document. Tagging the document and then
adding the form controls can create an inaccessible form.

I agree with the other response you got for this post: I can either go
through the form reading the text/instructions or by getting a list of form
controls. Having the text tagged gives me access to any information outside
of a form control while being able to reaffirm that I am in the right form
control for what I want to enter is provided by the ToolTips. Many forms
provide information specific to that point in the form and I want to be able
to have access to that content. Also, I can go through the text in a more
granular way while I can't do this with the ToolTips. So if there is one
word or phrase I don't understand, I can go out of forms mode and to the
text of the form/question.

For people with learning, cognitive or visual disabilities, having that
redundant information helps in understanding where they are in the form and
what to enter into the field. If they are using screen reading or
Text-to-Speech software, it can also confirm the Tab Order of the form
controls.

Cheers, Karen

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2014 6:09AM
Subject: Re: PDF forms: all form field-related information read out twice
← Previous message | Next message →

[Olaf wrote] . Also please keep in mind that when thinking of assistive
technology not to always only think of screen readers.

Agreed, we had a vendor try to artifact this text which made me
uncomfortable as that seems like a PDF/UA violation in addition to an AT
issue. In testing I found that ZoomText's text-to-speech tools did not
read the artifact text and this would be an issue as you mention.

Jonathan

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Tue, Jun 24 2014 6:54AM
Subject: Re: PDF forms: all form field-related information read out twice
← Previous message | Next message →

> Agreed, we had a vendor try to artifact this text which made me
> uncomfortable as that seems like a PDF/UA violation

Yes - this is a *clear* PDF/UA violation!

Field labels appearing on the page (i.e., not in the control’s tool-tip) are “real content”, period, end of discussion. They *shall* be tagged.

One of the many many reasons we need PDF/UA is to make such matters very clear.

Unfortunately, at the present time WCAG 2.0’s published PDF Techniques pertaining to PDF forms ignore the subject of form-field labels except in the context of tool-tips. This should be improved. For some reason (and differing from the way regular PDF forms are addressed) the discussion regarding LiveCycle (XFA) forms does include the “visual” label. However, XFA forms are a small percentage of PDF forms overall.

A not-unrelated observation… while the normative text of WCAG 2.0 itself is careful on this point, the PDF Techniques (and maybe others as well) seem to use “screen reader” as a substitute for “assistive technology” in many cases. As many have observed, this is misleading (since not all AT are screen readers); the text should be changed accordingly.

> In testing I found that ZoomText's text-to-speech tools did not
> read the artifact text and this would be an issue as you mention.

Precisely so.

Duff.

From: Nasrin Saef
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2014 8:18AM
Subject: Re: PDF forms: all form field-related information read out twice
← Previous message | No next message

Thanks for all of your replies! I'd like to address some of your points:

Olaf:
> Also please keep in mind that when thinking of assistive technology not
to always only think of screen readers. Blind and low vision users are a
relatively small
> percentage of people with disabilities (in other words: there are lots of
people with different needs).

This is exactly the reason I posted this question. I am aware of the fact
accessibility means more than screen reader compatibility - but I have to
admit that when it comes to topics such as forms, I'm not sure what else to
check. I know to take care about the tagging, the tab order, proper
contrasts etc. But I'm wondering what use cases I miss.

Karen:
> For people with learning, cognitive or visual disabilities, having that
redundant information helps in understanding where they are in the form and
what to enter
> into the field. If they are using screen reading or Text-to-Speech
software, it can also confirm the Tab Order of the form controls.

Said like this, it actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks!


2014-06-24 14:54 GMT+02:00 Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:

> > Agreed, we had a vendor try to artifact this text which made me
> > uncomfortable as that seems like a PDF/UA violation
>
> Yes - this is a *clear* PDF/UA violation!
>
> Field labels appearing on the page (i.e., not in the control's tool-tip)
> are "real content", period, end of discussion. They *shall* be tagged.
>
> One of the many many reasons we need PDF/UA is to make such matters very
> clear.
>
> Unfortunately, at the present time WCAG 2.0's published PDF Techniques
> pertaining to PDF forms ignore the subject of form-field labels except in
> the context of tool-tips. This should be improved. For some reason (and
> differing from the way regular PDF forms are addressed) the discussion
> regarding LiveCycle (XFA) forms does include the "visual" label. However,
> XFA forms are a small percentage of PDF forms overall.
>
> A not-unrelated observation… while the normative text of WCAG 2.0 itself
> is careful on this point, the PDF Techniques (and maybe others as well)
> seem to use "screen reader" as a substitute for "assistive technology" in
> many cases. As many have observed, this is misleading (since not all AT are
> screen readers); the text should be changed accordingly.
>
> > In testing I found that ZoomText's text-to-speech tools did not
> > read the artifact text and this would be an issue as you mention.
>
> Precisely so.
>
> Duff.
> > > >