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

Re: Acrobat PDF & Accessibility

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 08:30:07 -0500
Message-ID: <006901c18eda$9a67e780$c2f20141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Joel Ward" <ward_joel@bah.com>
Cc: "WAI List" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
the danger I see in this is that the pdf will be updated and the html
will not.  The two must some how be linked.  I think though that
supplying an accessible version of a document is a good idea and has
merit in the hard copy world.  Many documents that are printed in hard
copy are marked up for braille before embossing and we would not want
them in print.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Joel Ward" <ward_joel@bah.com>
Cc: "WAI List" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: Acrobat PDF & Accessibility


I think that is a very sensible approach.

chaals

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Joel Ward wrote:

  Question:

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

  In that case, I'd concentrate on making the HTML accessible and forget
about
  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
tend
  to
  > get annoyed when I click on a link and a PDF suddenly starts slowly
  appearing
  > without warning.
  >
  > I believe to meet WAI priority 1 checkpoints, an HTML version is
required.
  The
  > new more accessible PDF's that can be created with Adobe 5.0 and the
Make
  > Accessible Plugin are definitely an improvement over the old ones
for
  screen
  > readers, and if I understand this correctly, I believe that they
alone
  will
  > satisfy Section 508 without an alternative, though an HTML version
is
  still
  > recommended.
  >
  > As a web developer, I'm afraid that those of us who want to make our
sites
  as
  > 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
what
  we
  > have to start with), but also to make sure the PDF is itself
accessible,
  which
  > can also be easy or very time consuming, depending on how the PDF
was
  created,
  > what hardware and software one has, and how well one knows the new
PDF
  tagging
  > language and update facilities.
  >
  > Carol
  >
  > William R Williams/R5/USDAFS wrote:
  >
  > > Hello,
  > >
  > > It's been debated often, I suspect; yet, if my experience means
  anything,
  > > much disagreement exists about the "true" accessibility of pdfs on
the
  web.
  > > Certainly, Adobe has promoted the application and worked
diligently to
  make
  > > them accessible, but others - such as Jakob Nielsen - suggest
avoiding
  pdfs
  > > for on-screen delivery.
  > >
  > > I know there are definite usability issues, but how does this
group
  stand
  > > 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,
France)
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 08:29:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT