W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: PDFs

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:56:58 -0400
Message-ID: <002301c15bf4$7eb31d20$2cf60141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@W3.org>, "Joe Clark" <joeclark@contenu.nu>
it actually has less functionality in at least one respect than its
predecessor and that is that you cannot export documents from it into
html or text.  AS for upgrading, many do not have a choice.  It is
easier than ever before to produce accessible documents that are not
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@contenu.nu>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@W3.org>; <poehlman1@home.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:52 PM
Subject: PDFs

>the question still remains because PDF is not considered to be
>accessible for the majority of individuals who use voice output.

They'll have to upgrade. Time marches on, you know.

>the only accessibility it affords in its latest incarnation is that
>which is derived from using windows 95 or higher with the latest
>screen access tools.

Actually, Acrobat 5 or later used with any screen reader that can
manipulate Acrobat 5 will do an OK job muddling through even old
PDFs. Tagged PDFs, which are still very difficult to make, will read
out best of all, but a linear document like the Nielsen Norman report
will probably read adequately well. Tables and illustrations will
remain a problem, but the prose will be mostly accessible. None of
this was ever true with Acrobat 4 and earlier; version 5 adds
significant new logic to make educated guesses even with untagged
         Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org |
         Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques ||
           "I do not pretend to understand the mind of Joe Clark"
           -- Larry Goldberg
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 14:56:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:14 UTC