E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)

From: Cindy Jouper
Date: Sat, Nov 16 2019 8:21AM
Subject: "Accessible" version of documents
No previous message | Next message →

I need opinions! I have seen a number of instances lately of people creating two versions of documents - one that is attractive, and the other labeled "accessible" and stripped of all formatting - basically a text-only version. I know this is a bad idea on many levels - it marks people with disabilities as second-class citizens, depends on the creators maintaining two separate versions, and most of all seems to me to reflect laziness since creating an accessible document in Word or InDesign is not rocket science. I know there is a tiny bit of wiggle room in the standards allowing for creation of alternate versions (from HHS Word Document 508 Checklist, "1.14 Has a separate accessible version of the document been provided when there is no other way to make the content accessible?") but it is my contention that it is rare that a document cannot be designed to be accessible.
I've been asked to write an article about this practice, to discourage people from creating the "accessible" version of documents. I've been looking for resources to quote, but I'm having a hard time finding them. I would love to hear from others in the accessibility field to put some weight behind my words...and if you have links to information on the web, that would be helpful too. I'd like to make a serious argument without calling people lazy. :)
Thanks!
Cindy Jouper, CPWA<https://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertification>
Administrator, Digital Communications
Capital Region ESD 113
6005 Tyee Dr SW | Tumwater, WA 98512
o: 360-464-6708 | c: 360-485-2888
www.esd113.org<;http://www.esd113.org/>;
Pronouns: she/her

Your goals, our reason

FOLLOW US:
Twitter<https://twitter.com/ESD113> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/esd113> | Flickr<https://www.flickr.com/photos/esd113/albums>

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Sat, Nov 16 2019 10:11AM
Subject: Re: "Accessible" version of documents
← Previous message | No next message

The problem that is unique to documents (as opposed to webpages or
apps) is that they can be authored by pretty much anybody using any
software, so it is hard to force accessible standards or carry out
accessibility training (though people who author documents most
frequently should receive such training).
That being said, this is still no excuse for not posting one
accessible version of a document.
There are plenty of third party services that can accessibility tag
and test your document at affordable prices, especially when the
documents are simple, or, if you are a larger business, you can hire a
document accessibility specialist and provide him or her with the
software needed to test and tag documents, there are some powerful
tools out there.
It starts with setting the standard and expectation that all documents
should be published accessible, for most documents this isn't hard to
do.
There are a handful of valid exceptions (in certain situations):
* Document is time sensitive (financial information for instance) and
needs to be published immediately. In this case publish the most
accessible version you can but immediately start the accessibility
tagging process, ideally replace the original document with the
accessible version when ready, do not post the accessible version
separately.
* PDF documents, even accessible ones, do not render well on iOS
devices (thanks, Apple), so there is some argument for also making a
non-PDF format available, I'm not a fan (and kudos to Chrome for doing
a much better job with tagged PDF documents).
* The document is a clear alternative to information already available
(e.g. if you have an online web-based statement but also have the
ability to print out a physical copy).

But these are edge cases, the standard practices should be one accessible copy.
Creating and maintaining 2 separate copies of every document is costly
for the business and bad for the users (it opens up a big opportunity
for "unintentional" discrimination and gives the impression of a
second class experience).


On 11/16/19, Cindy Jouper < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I need opinions! I have seen a number of instances lately of people creating
> two versions of documents - one that is attractive, and the other labeled
> "accessible" and stripped of all formatting - basically a text-only version.
> I know this is a bad idea on many levels - it marks people with disabilities
> as second-class citizens, depends on the creators maintaining two separate
> versions, and most of all seems to me to reflect laziness since creating an
> accessible document in Word or InDesign is not rocket science. I know there
> is a tiny bit of wiggle room in the standards allowing for creation of
> alternate versions (from HHS Word Document 508 Checklist, "1.14 Has a
> separate accessible version of the document been provided when there is no
> other way to make the content accessible?") but it is my contention that it
> is rare that a document cannot be designed to be accessible.
> I've been asked to write an article about this practice, to discourage
> people from creating the "accessible" version of documents. I've been
> looking for resources to quote, but I'm having a hard time finding them. I
> would love to hear from others in the accessibility field to put some weight
> behind my words...and if you have links to information on the web, that
> would be helpful too. I'd like to make a serious argument without calling
> people lazy. :)
> Thanks!
> Cindy Jouper,
> CPWA<https://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertification>
> Administrator, Digital Communications
> Capital Region ESD 113
> 6005 Tyee Dr SW | Tumwater, WA 98512
> o: 360-464-6708 | c: 360-485-2888
> www.esd113.org<;http://www.esd113.org/>;
> Pronouns: she/her
>
> Your goals, our reason
>
> FOLLOW US:
> Twitter<https://twitter.com/ESD113> |
> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/esd113> |
> Flickr<https://www.flickr.com/photos/esd113/albums>
>
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.