W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: FW: WCAG2ICT... where's that "additional guidance" for PDF?

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:54:55 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP487E3ECD0105C1D7CA1355FEC80@phx.gbl>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
PS I think also we need to make it abundantly clear that the WCAG2ICT is
simply a document that examines how WCAG may apply to software and
documents.

It simply confirms that almost every one of the WCAG Success Criteria
applies to PDF, which makes sense since WCAG was written to apply to PDF.

Duff is pointing to the small number of comments. I think it is a good
thing that we didn't get much opposition. That means we were successful.
There were 1200 comments on the 2006 draft of WCAG, and in 2008 there was
not one formal objection, not even from those now on the PDF/UA committee,
who new WCAG applied to PDF.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> This does not surprise me at all. There is a popular myth starting to to
> hit the rumour mill that WCAG does not cover PDF and therefore PDF/UA is
> the only standard that should be used for PDFs.
>
> I think we need to remember the days back in early 2001-2002 when Adobe
> (the creators of PDF, and owners of PDF at the time) helped convince us
> that WCAG should not apply only to W3C markup languages. Adobe walked with
> us the entire way, with representation as a WCAG editor and Adobe poured
> many resources into the WCAG. They PDF developed techniques and sponsored
> many face to faces, and meals etc... Our PDF techniques have many source
> formats (Word, livecycle, Open Office etc...), and even have PDF code fixes
> for vendors. It was a mamoth effort. It took 8 months for us to test and
> approve them. The OCAD techniques take it further.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a push from some members of the PDF/UA committee
> to introduce paralell requirements to the WCAG for PDF authors in many
> jurisdictions including the Government of Ontario, and the Section 508 I
> think we have to work hard to dispel this myth.
>
> PDF/UA does not introduce anything substantially new, except things that
> were voted down in WCAG such as nested headings. It requires marking as
> artifacts EVERY path, even ones that are ignored by assistive technology,
> In other words, thousands of organizations will be spending millions of
> dollars and thousands of hours trying to fix things that never cause any
> trouble.
>
> WCAG's language of "a mechanism is available..." ensures that as assistive
> technology and browsers get better, that author requirements will lessen,
> and therefore the cost of accessibility will decrease which will be an
> additional incentive for organizations to meet the WCAG.
>
> If PDF/UA is written into law along side the WCAG, it will discourage many
> organizations from using PDF, but in the short term will make those in the
> remediation business very busy as organizations scramble to meet a standard
> that they have to buy, and they will have to learn another standard in
> addition to WCAG and try to figure out all the mappings, overlaps etc.
>
> I'm very concerned about this push and I think we have to double our
> education efforts to help jurisdictions understand that the Success
> Criteria were written very carefully to apply to PDF as well as other main
> technologies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI Passing along this message from Duff on the Interest Group list.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Avila
>> Chief Accessibility Officer
>> SSB BART Group
>> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>>
>> 703-637-8957 (o)
>> Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Duff Johnson [mailto:duff@duff-johnson.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 5:31 PM
>> To: WAI Interest Group
>> Subject: WCAG2ICT... where's that "additional guidance" for PDF?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It has been asserted in multiple comments on the Section 508 refresh that
>> the “additional information” found in WCAG2ICT “...provides appropriate
>> standards to ensure that PDF documents are accessible…."
>>
>> This surprised me, because I did not recall any such guidance being
>> provided in that document back when it was developed, and I was paying
>> attention at that time.
>>
>> Is this is the same WCAG2ICT document that managed to collect a grand
>> total of 24 messages in its public forum over almost 3 years?  Almost all
>> of which were substantive and detailed (if highly critical) comments from
>> myself, the CEO of callas software, Andi Snow-Weaver and Alex Li of
>> Microsoft, Ken Salaets of ITI (!), and others?
>>
>> None of these critiques were ever answered or addressed in the forum:
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/
>>
>> Can someone please clarify for me what, precisely, in WCAG2ICT helps
>> ensure PDF documents are accessible?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Duff.
>>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2015 21:55:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:19 UTC