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

typo new=knew

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 5:54 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>