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

RE: Acrobat PDF & Accessibility

From: Harry Woodrow <harrry@email.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:14:21 +0800
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Joel Ward" <ward_joel@bah.com>
Cc: "WAI List" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
One thing I have noted in this is we continually talk of PDF.  We never
bother to say a pdf created by Acrobat distiller 2.0, a pdf created from a
scanned document by Adobe Acrobat 3.0,4.0,5.0 etc.  Each of these is a
totally different item, yes they may share the same file extension but the
accessibility of each will be totally different.  THe fact that Acrobat 5.0
has a degree of accessibility if properly used does not sudenly make all the
other "pdf" documents accessible.

Harry Woodrow

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2001 1:33 PM
To: Joel Ward
Cc: WAI List
Subject: Re: Acrobat PDF & Accessibility

I think that is a very sensible approach.


On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Joel Ward wrote:


  If you have an accessible HTML version of a document, do we need to make
  PDF version of the document accessible too?  What if the PDF version is
  made available for printing purposes (and marked as such)?

  In that case, I'd concentrate on making the HTML accessible and forget
  the PDF.

  What does everyone else think?

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Carol Foster" <c.foster@umassp.edu>
  To: "William R Williams/R5/USDAFS" <wrwilliams@fs.fed.us>
  Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
  Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 4:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Acrobat PDF & Accessibility

  > I agree with Jakob Nielsen, though some people really like PDF's.  I
  > get annoyed when I click on a link and a PDF suddenly starts slowly
  > without warning.
  > I believe to meet WAI priority 1 checkpoints, an HTML version is
  > new more accessible PDF's that can be created with Adobe 5.0 and the
  > Accessible Plugin are definitely an improvement over the old ones for
  > readers, and if I understand this correctly, I believe that they alone
  > satisfy Section 508 without an alternative, though an HTML version is
  > recommended.
  > As a web developer, I'm afraid that those of us who want to make our
  > accessible as possible are now in the position of not only having to
  create an
  > HTML version, which can be easy or very time consuming (depending on
  > have to start with), but also to make sure the PDF is itself accessible,
  > can also be easy or very time consuming, depending on how the PDF was
  > what hardware and software one has, and how well one knows the new PDF
  > language and update facilities.
  > Carol
  > William R Williams/R5/USDAFS wrote:
  > > Hello,
  > >
  > > It's been debated often, I suspect; yet, if my experience means
  > > much disagreement exists about the "true" accessibility of pdfs on the
  > > Certainly, Adobe has promoted the application and worked diligently to
  > > them accessible, but others - such as Jakob Nielsen - suggest avoiding
  > > for on-screen delivery.
  > >
  > > I know there are definite usability issues, but how does this group
  > > on the accessibility of PDFs?
  > >
  > > Thanks!
  > > ======================
  > > Bill Williams
  > > Communication Technician
  > > USDA Forest Service, Region 5
  > > 707.562.9005
  > > wrwilliams@fs.fed.us
  > > ======================
  > Carol Foster, Web Developer
  > University of Massachusetts, President's Office
  > http://www.umass-its.net/ipg

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617
258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 01:14:19 UTC

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