WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

for

Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)

From: Tomlins Diane
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2018 1:39PM
Subject: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
No previous message | Next message →

Hi everyone,

Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise solution for PDFs.

The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."

So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed' and the document will have failures in Acrobat.

The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing contingent of folks on Macs.

Thanks!

Diane R Tomlins
HCA IT&S | Digital Media
Accessibility SME

From: L Snider
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2018 2:00PM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Diane,

In my experience, PAC is not used by most people, even though it is a great
program! I use both Mac and PC, and it is annoying that I have to pull out
my PC to use it. This is my experience only and I find it depends where one
lives. In Europe it is used a lot, but other countries, it depends...

One thing to ask...if they are sending you documents that passed PAC, may I
ask what errors you found in Acrobat? In my view, that should not be
happening, as PAC is way more detailed than Acrobat's checker (people will
correct me if I am wrong, but Acrobat came from WCAG and S508 and PAC from
Matterhorn Protocol but Acrobat also checks some of it too). In my
experience with PAC 2 and 3, it won't pass easily (and of course we
acknowledge that neither program can (yet) check for colour, alt goodness,
etc.).

Cheers

Lisa




On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Tomlins Diane <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is
> telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC
> 3.0. In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an
> Enterprise solution for PDFs.
>
> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should
> not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many
> errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>
> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
> between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
> use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only
> use the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as
> 'passed' and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>
> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
> contingent of folks on Macs.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Diane R Tomlins
> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
> Accessibility SME
>
>
> > > > >

From: chagnon@pubcom.com
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2018 4:59PM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

We find that no one tool finds everything.
We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
Wish it did a better job, though.

--Bevi Chagnon

- - -
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
- - -
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
- - -
Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
Tomlins Diane
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

Hi everyone,

Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling
us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
solution for PDFs.

The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not
be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."

So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use
the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
and the document will have failures in Acrobat.

The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
contingent of folks on Macs.

Thanks!

Diane R Tomlins
HCA IT&S | Digital Media
Accessibility SME

From: Jeevan Reddy
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 4:36AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:29 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> We find that no one tool finds everything.
> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
> errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
> Wish it did a better job, though.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
> - - -
> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> - - -
> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
> - - -
> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
> Tomlins Diane
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is
> telling
> us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
> house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
> solution for PDFs.
>
> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should
> not
> be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
> when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>
> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
> between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
> use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only
> use
> the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>
> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
> contingent of folks on Macs.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Diane R Tomlins
> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
> Accessibility SME
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > >



--
Best Regards,
Jeevan Reddy,
Accessibility Consultant,
Infosys Ltd,
Bangalore, India.

From: Alan Zaitchik
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 6:51AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Bevi,
I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.)
Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
(I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
A

> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> We find that no one tool finds everything.
> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
> errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
> Wish it did a better job, though.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
> - - -
> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> - - -
> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
> - - -
> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
> Tomlins Diane
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling
> us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
> house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
> solution for PDFs.
>
> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not
> be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
> when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>
> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
> between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
> use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use
> the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>
> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
> contingent of folks on Macs.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Diane R Tomlins
> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
> Accessibility SME
>
>
> > > > >
>

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 7:10AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Alan, I've seen folks mention the CommonLook Validator, but their
website doesn't make it clear that it is intended for free use, they
tell you to contact them for a "free trial" version:
https://commonlook.com/accessibility-software/commonlook-pdf-validator/

Does their license allow ongoing use without purchasing the product?

Phil.


On 2018-07-31 8:51 AM, Alan Zaitchik wrote:
> Bevi,
> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.)
> Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
> A
>
>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> We find that no one tool finds everything.
>> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
>> errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
>> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
>> Wish it did a better job, though.
>>
>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>
>> - - -
>> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> - - -
>> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
>> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
>> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
>> - - -
>> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
>> Tomlins Diane
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling
>> us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
>> house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
>> solution for PDFs.
>>
>> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not
>> be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
>> when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>>
>> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
>> between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
>> use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use
>> the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
>> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>>
>> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
>> contingent of folks on Macs.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Diane R Tomlins
>> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
>> Accessibility SME
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>>
> > > >

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 7:20AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

CommonLook Validator is a separate product from the CommonLook Global Access tool. Validator is part of the paid for tool that CommonLook has pulled out and offers free as a stand alone checker.

If you follow the link to get the free trial, you go to a webpage where you need to enter your name and e-mail address.
https://commonlook.com/accessibility-software/commonlook-pdf-validator/commonlook-pdf-validator-request-a-download/

You are agreeing to let them use your information by filling in the form. The paragraph about this is just after the information you enter. I just walked through the process.

I know the language on the site is confusing given that they do have Validator as part of the for purchase CommonLook Global Access, but I didn't see anything on the page that would indicate that at some point you have to paid for Validator. I've had my copy of it since they released it as a stand-alone tool.

Cheers, Karen





-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Philip Kiff
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:10 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

Alan, I've seen folks mention the CommonLook Validator, but their website doesn't make it clear that it is intended for free use, they tell you to contact them for a "free trial" version:
https://commonlook.com/accessibility-software/commonlook-pdf-validator/

Does their license allow ongoing use without purchasing the product?

Phil.


On 2018-07-31 8:51 AM, Alan Zaitchik wrote:
> Bevi,
> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot
> more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.) Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
> A
>
>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> We find that no one tool finds everything.
>> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct
>> the errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
>> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
>> Wish it did a better job, though.
>>
>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>
>> - - -
>> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> - - -
>> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing consulting .
>> training . development . design . sec. 508 services Upcoming classes
>> at www.PubCom.com/classes
>> - - -
>> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf
>> Of Tomlins Diane
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is
>> telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use
>> PAC 3.0. In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have
>> an Enterprise solution for PDFs.
>>
>> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat
>> should not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were
>> getting so many errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>>
>> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked
>> differences between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat
>> ? Is it better to use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor
>> admonishing us to only use the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
>> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>>
>> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a
>> growing contingent of folks on Macs.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Diane R Tomlins
>> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
>> Accessibility SME
>>
>>
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
>>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 7:24AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

I follow the same workflow as Bevi: fix all errors in Acrobat and then
continue to remediate until all PAC 3 errors are also gone.

There are very few cases where I have had a file that passed PAC 2 or
PAC 3 cleanly and still had errors in Acrobat Pro DC's built-in
accessibility checker.

I think there are a few PDF code quirks that Acrobat's checker flags as
an error that might be treated as a false positive.

For instance, sometimes Acrobat chokes on character encoding issues that
are found in bullet labels or in artifacts, where I don't think such
items are actually an issue. I've also run into strange quirks where
Acrobat thinks there are problems with alternative text of figures that
are comprised of multiple other figures, or with some parent elements
have alternative text when they shouldn't. Or perhaps it was a case
where a tag had alternative text that wasn't allowed to have alternative
text? I don't remember. The instances were very, very infrequent.
Perhaps 1 in 100 files. In general, I think that PAC 3 does a better job
of ignoring elements that have been artifacted, and in analyzing more
accurately whether nested code structures are in fact accessible or not.

Phil.

Philip Kiff
D4K Communications


On 2018-07-30 6:59 PM, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> We find that no one tool finds everything.
> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
> errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
> Wish it did a better job, though.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
> - - -
> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> - - -
> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
> - - -
> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
> Tomlins Diane
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling
> us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
> house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
> solution for PDFs.
>
> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not
> be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
> when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>
> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
> between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
> use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use
> the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>
> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
> contingent of folks on Macs.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Diane R Tomlins
> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
> Accessibility SME
>
>

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 7:25AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Great! Thanks!


On 2018-07-31 9:20 AM, Karlen Communications wrote:
> CommonLook Validator is a separate product from the CommonLook Global Access tool. Validator is part of the paid for tool that CommonLook has pulled out and offers free as a stand alone checker.
>
> If you follow the link to get the free trial, you go to a webpage where you need to enter your name and e-mail address.
> https://commonlook.com/accessibility-software/commonlook-pdf-validator/commonlook-pdf-validator-request-a-download/
>
> You are agreeing to let them use your information by filling in the form. The paragraph about this is just after the information you enter. I just walked through the process.
>
> I know the language on the site is confusing given that they do have Validator as part of the for purchase CommonLook Global Access, but I didn't see anything on the page that would indicate that at some point you have to paid for Validator. I've had my copy of it since they released it as a stand-alone tool.
>
> Cheers, Karen
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Philip Kiff
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:10 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>
> Alan, I've seen folks mention the CommonLook Validator, but their website doesn't make it clear that it is intended for free use, they tell you to contact them for a "free trial" version:
> https://commonlook.com/accessibility-software/commonlook-pdf-validator/
>
> Does their license allow ongoing use without purchasing the product?
>
> Phil.
>
>
> On 2018-07-31 8:51 AM, Alan Zaitchik wrote:
>> Bevi,
>> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot
>> more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.) Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
>> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
>> A
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> We find that no one tool finds everything.
>>> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct
>>> the errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
>>> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
>>> Wish it did a better job, though.
>>>
>>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>>
>>> - - -
>>> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> - - -
>>> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing consulting .
>>> training . development . design . sec. 508 services Upcoming classes
>>> at www.PubCom.com/classes
>>> - - -
>>> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf
>>> Of Tomlins Diane
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
>>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is
>>> telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use
>>> PAC 3.0. In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have
>>> an Enterprise solution for PDFs.
>>>
>>> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat
>>> should not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were
>>> getting so many errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>>>
>>> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked
>>> differences between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat
>>> ? Is it better to use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor
>>> admonishing us to only use the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
>>> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>>>
>>> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a
>>> growing contingent of folks on Macs.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Diane R Tomlins
>>> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
>>> Accessibility SME
>>>
>>>
>>> >>> >>> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>>> >>>
>>>
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> > > > >
> > > >

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 7:23AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

I've e-mailed CommonLook to see if I can get some clarification on "try for free." Will let you know if I hear anything.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Philip Kiff
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:10 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

Alan, I've seen folks mention the CommonLook Validator, but their website doesn't make it clear that it is intended for free use, they tell you to contact them for a "free trial" version:
https://commonlook.com/accessibility-software/commonlook-pdf-validator/

Does their license allow ongoing use without purchasing the product?

Phil.


On 2018-07-31 8:51 AM, Alan Zaitchik wrote:
> Bevi,
> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot
> more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.) Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
> A
>
>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> We find that no one tool finds everything.
>> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct
>> the errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
>> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
>> Wish it did a better job, though.
>>
>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>
>> - - -
>> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> - - -
>> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing consulting .
>> training . development . design . sec. 508 services Upcoming classes
>> at www.PubCom.com/classes
>> - - -
>> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf
>> Of Tomlins Diane
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is
>> telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use
>> PAC 3.0. In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have
>> an Enterprise solution for PDFs.
>>
>> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat
>> should not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were
>> getting so many errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>>
>> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked
>> differences between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat
>> ? Is it better to use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor
>> admonishing us to only use the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
>> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>>
>> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a
>> growing contingent of folks on Macs.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Diane R Tomlins
>> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
>> Accessibility SME
>>
>>
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
>>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>

From: chagnon@pubcom.com
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 10:00AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Phil wrote:
" sometimes Acrobat chokes on character encoding issues that are found in
bullet labels or in artifacts, where I don't think such items are actually
an issue. "

Usually we find that the bullet character with the encoding error is from an
old TrueType or PostScript font that is not mapped to Unicode. Very common
with Word's bullet utility that often uses an old version of the Symbol font
(and the bullet is symbol (decimal code) 186 rather than Unicode 2022).
Redefine the bullet in Word to correct the problem.

One reason why bullets in accessible PDF use the <LBL> tag is so to provide
a richer experience for those using A T. The <LBL> tag can announce the
exact character being used, which can be important in a list with both X and
checkmarks for the bullet characters.

--Bevi
- - -
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
- - -
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
- - -
Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog

From:
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 11:15AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

When speaking of Acrobat, it should also be noted that there is a PDF/UA-1 checker buried in the Acrobat Preflight plug-in. Its approach is similar to that of PAC 3 (which is also very worthwhile). PAC 3 and AFAIK CommonLook Validator are free (and Preflight PDF/UA-1 check is 'free' if you already have a recent version of Acrobat Pro) - why ot give each of them a try and determine which suit you best?

Olaf


> On 31. Jul 2018, at 14:51, Alan Zaitchik < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Bevi,
> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.)
> Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
> A
>
>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> We find that no one tool finds everything.
>> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
>> errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
>> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
>> Wish it did a better job, though.
>>
>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>
>> - - -
>> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> - - -
>> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
>> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
>> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
>> - - -
>> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
>> Tomlins Diane
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling
>> us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
>> house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
>> solution for PDFs.
>>
>> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not
>> be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
>> when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>>
>> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
>> between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
>> use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use
>> the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
>> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>>
>> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
>> contingent of folks on Macs.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Diane R Tomlins
>> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
>> Accessibility SME
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>>
> > > >

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Tue, Jul 31 2018 11:57AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

I would add to Olaf that preflight which I believe can be found under the print production tools has some other useful but advanced features allowing users to look at the content stream and also run PDF syntax checking for docs with invalid structures.

Jonathan

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 31, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> When speaking of Acrobat, it should also be noted that there is a PDF/UA-1 checker buried in the Acrobat Preflight plug-in. Its approach is similar to that of PAC 3 (which is also very worthwhile). PAC 3 and AFAIK CommonLook Validator are free (and Preflight PDF/UA-1 check is 'free' if you already have a recent version of Acrobat Pro) - why ot give each of them a try and determine which suit you best?
>
> Olaf
>
>
>> On 31. Jul 2018, at 14:51, Alan Zaitchik < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> Bevi,
>> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.)
>> Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
>> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
>> A
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> We find that no one tool finds everything.
>>> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct the
>>> errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
>>> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
>>> Wish it did a better job, though.
>>>
>>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>>
>>> - - -
>>> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> - - -
>>> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
>>> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
>>> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
>>> - - -
>>> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
>>> Tomlins Diane
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
>>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is telling
>>> us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. In
>>> house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise
>>> solution for PDFs.
>>>
>>> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not
>>> be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors
>>> when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>>>
>>> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences
>>> between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat ? Is it better to
>>> use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use
>>> the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
>>> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>>>
>>> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing
>>> contingent of folks on Macs.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Diane R Tomlins
>>> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
>>> Accessibility SME
>>>
>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>
>> >> >> >> >
> > > >

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Wed, Aug 01 2018 5:44AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

I did hear back from CommonLook and was told that PDF Validator is free, it is not a "free trial." Just to confirm with everyone.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Olaf Drümmer
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:16 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

When speaking of Acrobat, it should also be noted that there is a PDF/UA-1 checker buried in the Acrobat Preflight plug-in. Its approach is similar to that of PAC 3 (which is also very worthwhile). PAC 3 and AFAIK CommonLook Validator are free (and Preflight PDF/UA-1 check is 'free' if you already have a recent version of Acrobat Pro) - why ot give each of them a try and determine which suit you best?

Olaf


> On 31. Jul 2018, at 14:51, Alan Zaitchik < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Bevi,
> I have found that the free CommonLook Validator plugin finds a lot
> more issues that Acrobat’s Accessibility Checker. (And you can select the standards you’re checking against.) Even allowing for fact that some reported failures may be false positives, is there a reason not to start with Validator?
> (I have no experience with PAC 3.0.)
> A
>
>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 6:59 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> We find that no one tool finds everything.
>> We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct
>> the errors it finds, and then run PAC3.
>> Acrobat does not find all errors...not even close!
>> Wish it did a better job, though.
>>
>> --Bevi Chagnon
>>
>> - - -
>> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> - - -
>> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing consulting .
>> training . development . design . sec. 508 services Upcoming classes
>> at www.PubCom.com/classes
>> - - -
>> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf
>> Of Tomlins Diane
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:40 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. We have a vendor that is
>> telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use
>> PAC 3.0. In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have
>> an Enterprise solution for PDFs.
>>
>> The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat
>> should not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were
>> getting so many errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site."
>>
>> So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked
>> differences between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. Acrobat
>> ? Is it better to use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor
>> admonishing us to only use the tool THEY use. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed'
>> and the document will have failures in Acrobat.
>>
>> The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a
>> growing contingent of folks on Macs.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Diane R Tomlins
>> HCA IT&S | Digital Media
>> Accessibility SME
>>
>>
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
>>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Sat, Aug 04 2018 1:54PM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm slow getting back to this, but thanks for the additional info Bevi,
and especially for the explanation of possible use cases where correct
Label <Lbl> tags can make a difference.

In one recent document that was giving me troubles, I marked the bullet
as a figure and inserted the word "bullet" as the "actual text" property
for some standard dot bullets that were not passing the Acrobat Pro DC
checker cleanly. This improved the screen reader experience (by making
it identical to the experience of a bullet that was properly encoded)
while at the same time getting rid of the Acrobat error.

And I have taken a similar approach with incorrectly encoded checkboxes
and alternative text using the phrase "empty checkbox" or "selected
checkbox". These edge cases would probably be better with correct
characters and embedded fonts, I am sure.

Phil.


On 2018-07-31 12:00 PM, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> " sometimes Acrobat chokes on character encoding issues that are found in
> bullet labels or in artifacts, where I don't think such items are actually
> an issue. "
>
> Usually we find that the bullet character with the encoding error is from an
> old TrueType or PostScript font that is not mapped to Unicode. Very common
> with Word's bullet utility that often uses an old version of the Symbol font
> (and the bullet is symbol (decimal code) 186 rather than Unicode 2022).
> Redefine the bullet in Word to correct the problem.
>
> One reason why bullets in accessible PDF use the <LBL> tag is so to provide
> a richer experience for those using A T. The <LBL> tag can announce the
> exact character being used, which can be important in a list with both X and
> checkmarks for the bullet characters.
>
> --Bevi
> - - -
> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> - - -
> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
> - - -
> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog
>
>
>
> > > >

From: Dejan Kozina
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2018 4:09PM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Regarding CommonLook PDF Validator: I filled in the form on the website,
got an email asking if I've received a download link (I haven't) and
what I was going to use the software for, duly answered and received
this as a final response: "currently we are not authorized to sell
CommonLook outside of North America and Australia".

djn

--
-----------------------------------------
Dejan Kozina s.p.
Kunaverjeva ul. 9
1000 Ljubljana (SLO)
tel.: +39 348 7355 225
https://www.kozina.com/
e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: chagnon@pubcom.com
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2018 4:42PM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Some people have also received notices that CommonLook Global Access can't
be used for commercial purposes, such as by those who sell remediation
services.

But I heard that CommonLook Validator was free.

- - -
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
- - -
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
- - -
Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Dejan
Kozina
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 6:10 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

Regarding CommonLook PDF Validator: I filled in the form on the website, got
an email asking if I've received a download link (I haven't) and what I was
going to use the software for, duly answered and received this as a final
response: "currently we are not authorized to sell CommonLook outside of
North America and Australia".

djn

--
-----------------------------------------
Dejan Kozina s.p.
Kunaverjeva ul. 9
1000 Ljubljana (SLO)
tel.: +39 348 7355 225
https://www.kozina.com/
e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://webaim.org/discussion/archives

From: L Snider
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2018 5:19PM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | Next message →

Yes, it is free. I tried it out about 8-10 months ago...My computer kept
crashing and they said they would look into the issue. It may have been my
computer at the time, but they had seen that issue before. I never had a
chance to test it out, so I would be curious to know how others found the
free version, as many get it to work without issue.

Cheers

Lisa



On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:42 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Some people have also received notices that CommonLook Global Access can't
> be used for commercial purposes, such as by those who sell remediation
> services.
>
> But I heard that CommonLook Validator was free.
>
> - - -
> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> - - -
> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
> consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services
> Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
> - - -
> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
> Dejan
> Kozina
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 6:10 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>
> Regarding CommonLook PDF Validator: I filled in the form on the website,
> got
> an email asking if I've received a download link (I haven't) and what I was
> going to use the software for, duly answered and received this as a final
> response: "currently we are not authorized to sell CommonLook outside of
> North America and Australia".
>
> djn
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Dejan Kozina s.p.
> Kunaverjeva ul. 9
> 1000 Ljubljana (SLO)
> tel.: +39 348 7355 225
> https://www.kozina.com/
> e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > at
> http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >
> > > > >

From: Joseph Sherman
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2018 7:24AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
← Previous message | No next message

The CommonLook PDF Validator is free for everyone for unlimited use, even though I says "trial" on the webpage. I've used it quite successfully over the years as a plug-in to Acrobat DC without many issues. It checks PDFs to WCAG, 508, HHS, and PDF/UA standards. I have had great response from their tech support which is unusual seeing as it's a free product. They use it as advertising for their expensive paid product, PDF GlobalAccess, which will help remediate the PDF once errors are found.

Please contact me directly for any further questions.


Joseph Sherman
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of L Snider
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 7:20 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?

Yes, it is free. I tried it out about 8-10 months ago...My computer kept crashing and they said they would look into the issue. It may have been my computer at the time, but they had seen that issue before. I never had a chance to test it out, so I would be curious to know how others found the free version, as many get it to work without issue.

Cheers

Lisa



On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:42 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Some people have also received notices that CommonLook Global Access
> can't be used for commercial purposes, such as by those who sell
> remediation services.
>
> But I heard that CommonLook Validator was free.
>
> - - -
> Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> - - -
> PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing consulting .
> training . development . design . sec. 508 services Upcoming classes
> at www.PubCom.com/classes
> - - -
> Latest blog-newsletter - Accessibility Tips at www.PubCom.com/blog
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
> Dejan Kozina
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 6:10 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. PAC 3.0?
>
> Regarding CommonLook PDF Validator: I filled in the form on the
> website, got an email asking if I've received a download link (I
> haven't) and what I was going to use the software for, duly answered
> and received this as a final
> response: "currently we are not authorized to sell CommonLook outside
> of North America and Australia".
>
> djn
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Dejan Kozina s.p.
> Kunaverjeva ul. 9
> 1000 Ljubljana (SLO)
> tel.: +39 348 7355 225
> https://www.kozina.com/
> e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >