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

Re: Should PDF documents have headers and footers on every page?

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:07:56 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP2102E27D6FE224B0098D09AFEBC0@phx.gbl>
To: "Hoffman, Allen" <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
CC: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
We have no power over User Agents, and there is nothing available currently
that an author can do to make headers and footers optionally turn on and
off.

See a full explanation here:
 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015AprJun/0243.html

that is why I think Kerstin's failure proposal is the best way forward. for
reasons I propose here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015AprJun/0246.html


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 Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
wrote:

>  Just so I am following this accurately.
>
>
>
> If a document does not have page numbers, headers or footers are we
> requiring that such are provided?  I don’t believe this would be wise.
>
>
>
>
>
> If page numbers, headers or footers are provided it seems what we are
> discussing is the encoding based on how screen readers read the content, in
> linear sequence, or in another sequence at the preference of the user.
>
>
>
> If we want user control of how such information is read it should be coded
> to allow such and let default reading sequence be at the selection of the
> screen reader or other product manufacturer and then provide the
> alternative options as part of the assistive technology.
>
>
>
> Does this change the thinking in any way?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I fully understand the difference in preferences for this as a screen
> reader user, and the preference for me changes based on the type of
> material I am reading, so its not an all oor nothing kind of user
> preference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Allen Hoffman*
>
> Deputy Executive Director
>
> The Office of Accessible Systems & Technology
>
> Department of Homeland Security
>
> 202-447-0503 (voice)
>
> allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov
>
>
>
> DHS Accessibility Helpdesk
>
> 202-447-0440 (voice)
>
> 202-447-0582 (fax)
>
> 202-447-5857 (TTY)
>
> accessibility@dhs.gov
>
>
>
> *This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and
> state law governing electronic communications and may contain sensitive and
> legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to the
> sender and delete this message.  Thank you.*
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:23 AM
> *To:* Jonathan Avila
> *Cc:* Hoffman, Allen; Gregg Vanderheiden; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
> *Subject:* Re: Should PDF documents have headers and footers on every
> page?
>
>
>
> >>>Well, it could be a user agent option.  For example, there is a
> specific artifact type for pagination – so there seems like the option to
> expose this information on request since it already has to be properly
> coded as pagination.
>
> David response:
>
> There are a couple of ways to respond to that. The first is that I'm not
> sure that would be so easy. If "user agent option" means the screen reader
> could query for the pagination artifact and have a setting to speak it or
> not, I don't think so. I don't think the Screen reader has access to the
> code, it only has access to the tag tree. And from what I can see, there
> does not appear to be a distinction between a pagination artifact and any
> other sort of artifact.
>
> If you mean that the PDF reader could expose it, that would be possible,
> but it would have to sniff for that artifact in the code and then convert
> it to some sort on other tag in the tag tree so that the screen reader
> would recognize it, yet ignore other types of artifacts in the document.
> Further, there is no distinction between pagination artifacts that are
> changing from section ti section or page to page and other types of running
> headers and footers which are also pagination artifacts. The PDF spec is
> not that granular.
>
> All this to say that I don't think this is a realistic expectation, and an
> onerous demand upon user agents, and difficult to implement with the
> current PDF standard.
>
> The second way to answer this is that WCAG attempts to solve the
> *practical* problem of inaccessible content now, rather than shoot for a
> theoretical target. So our "accessibility supported" requirement wouldn't
> make assumptions that in the future this or that user agent behaviour could
> overcome a particular problem. The content fails now if it is not
> accessibility supported now.
>
> All this to say I'm in favour of Kerstin's failure suggestion,
> "Failure of 1.3.1 due to information in the header or footer not being
> available in main body of the document"
>  and a reworking of PDF14 so it is consistent with itself.
>
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 13:08:28 UTC

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