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

RE: PDFs

From: Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:56:18 +0930
Message-ID: <E1962E8F1DF0D411878300A0C9ACB0F902463720@exstaff4.magill.unisa.edu.au>
To: "'Access Systems'" <accessys@smart.net>, David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Thanks everyone for pointing out the problems in the "accessible" version of
Acrobat (V5).

I must confess that when I responded to Steven's email re the report only being
in PDF format that I had not tried out a wide range of PDF documents and
certainly had only run this on a Pentium. I understand the issues everyone has
kindly pointed out about the very limited functionality provided in Acrobat V5
and the assumption that everyone has access to higher end systems. 

Do we have a mechanism for feeding this kind of stuff back to Adobe (or other
companies when we discover weaknesses in their proposed solutions for
accessibility)? Sure we can all email the companies individually - but would a
concerted coordinated approach have more impact?

Denise

Dr Denise L Wood
Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning)
University of South Australia
CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000
Ph:    (61 8) 8302 2172 / (61 8) 8302 4472 (Tuesdays & Thursdays)
Fax:  (61 8) 8302 2363 / (61 8) 8302 4390
Mob: (0413 648 260)

Email:	Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au
WWW:	http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?Name=Denise.Wood



-----Original Message-----
From: Access Systems [mailto:accessys@smart.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 5:00 AM
To: David Poehlman
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Joe Clark
Subject: Re: PDFs


On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, David Poehlman wrote:

> 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
> proprietary.

I know the "Don't have a choice" issue for a number of reasons.

ALSO I haven't been able to get the text output to work via the Linux OS.
but that could be me.   
HOWEVER to get adobe to work in my firewalled enviorenment it has to be
downloaded, internally ported to another machine, then run through an
interperter (adobe) and it leaves me with no way to respond.

See we do a lot of work in third world countries.. sometimes getting a
2400baud connection is difficult.  so what ever comes in has to be a
clean/tidy/robust system... windoz does not meet any of those criteria.

I think a lot of us keep thinking everyone has a new Pentium processor
running the latest software....one of my contacts at an independent living
center in Nicaragua has an old 286 as their newest machine..this is a
"WORLD" wide web and we are cutting off a lot of the world with all this
fancy stuff.

And when it comes to accessibility the third world needs it far more
desperately than we do in the "have" part of the world.  upgrade happens
when someone sends em a new (used) computer that actually works.  sure a
lot of software is free, but it isn't if you don't have the memory to
operate the free software...the new Windoz requires more memory to load in
RAM as some of these folks have on thier hard drive.

this is setting a minimum standard for access FOR THE WORLD not just North
America and the EU.  if it will work in PINE (e-mail) or LYNX
(browser) you can be pretty sure everyone can read it.

getting down off my soapbox

Bob


> ----- 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
> PDFs.
> --
>          Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org |
> <http://joeclark.org/access/>
>          Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques ||
>            "I do not pretend to understand the mind of Joe Clark"
>            -- Larry Goldberg
> 

   /"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign       accessBob                       .-.
   \ /   NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail   accessys@smartnospam.net        /v\
    X    NO MSWord docs in e-mail    Access Systems, engineers      // \\ 
   / \   NO attachments in e-mail    equal access is a civil right /( _ )\
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachements are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privleged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 11:26:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:58 GMT