W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: Accessing PDFs

From: Nissen, Dan E <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:43:46 -0500
Message-ID: <FC86023944FB1F48943B3B1CED11E0FC9BDD94@USRV-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

I agree.  And, there are good reasons for using PDF for the documents in
that, for sighted persons and the OCR industry, PDF has the advantage of
producing very reliable identical printing on multiple printers, and thus
can be used as OCR input very easily and reliably, in cases where the paper
document is still useful.  HTML does not reliably produce anywhere near
identical printing.


-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Smith [mailto:aaron@gwmicro.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:05 AM
To: David Poehlman; kestrell; Access Systems
Cc: RUST Randal; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Accessing PDFs

So, in other words, we should never embrace new technology because older 
technology already exists? In my opinion, that's a stifling point of view 
that will never assist in advancing the accessibility market. That line of 
thinking is part of the reason that accessibility isn't more mainstream. 
If, instead of pushing the envelope, we sit back and say, "The heck with 
it. I'll just use what I already have," then we might as well give up.

What's the point of moving from Windows 9X to XP, IE 5 to IE 6, Office 2000 
to Office XP? Because the latter products have more/better accessibility 
built in, as well as more general features. Same thing with PDFs. 
Originally, there were not accessible at all. Now they are accessible. 
Maybe not 100% of them 100% of the time, but to say, "It's not perfect, so 
let's not use it" violates the whole direction of accessibility advocacy.

At 12:21 PM 10/24/2002 -0400, David Poehlman wrote:

>the problem with this logic is that it totally misses the mark when
>those documents can just as well be much more accessible by not being in
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Aaron Smith" <aaron@gwmicro.com>
>To: "kestrell" <aeryadne@theworld.com>; "Access Systems"
>Cc: "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:02 AM
>Subject: Re: Accessing PDFs
>The point is that we had to start somewhere. I know for a fact that the
>are working on accessible PDFs, as are other government agencies. The
>we spread the information that there is a way to make PDFs accessible,
>better the chances that those practices will become mainstream.
>At 07:29 AM 10/24/2002 -0400, kestrell wrote:
> >It is also worth noting where the quote accessible unquote pdf docs
> >Of course the screen reader manuals are accessible, because any company
> >who produced a pdf doc that had any relation to screen readers and did
> >assure it was accessible would be crazy, though there are a lot of
> >company decisions out there. Places to check for accessible pdf docs
> >be government web sites, such as the IRS web site, or materials online
> >university libraries, or just about any eBook sold in the pdf format.
> >rate of inaccessibility just sky-rocketed to about eighty percent
> >
> >kestrell
>To insure that you receive proper support, please include all
>past correspondence (where applicable), and any relevant
>information pertinent to your situation when submitting a
>problem report to the GW Micro Technical Support Team.
>Aaron Smith
>GW Micro
>Phone: 260/489-3671
>Fax: 260/489-2608
>WWW: http://www.gwmicro.com
>FTP: ftp://ftp.gwmicro.com
>Technical Support & Web Development

To insure that you receive proper support, please include all
past correspondence (where applicable), and any relevant
information pertinent to your situation when submitting a
problem report to the GW Micro Technical Support Team.

Aaron Smith
GW Micro
Phone: 260/489-3671
Fax: 260/489-2608
WWW: http://www.gwmicro.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.gwmicro.com
Technical Support & Web Development
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 09:43:55 UTC

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