Re: Re[2]: PDF techniques

I can't get into this right now as I need to focus on AccessU, but PDFs do
serve a purpose and can be very accessible. We can discuss more in a week
or two.

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 10:34 AM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> As some folks on the AGWG represent/come from the PDF side of the
> industry (at least historically), this may be an ... interesting topic.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ / https://github.com/patrickhlauke /
> https://codepen.io/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ / https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From "Mike Gifford" <mike.gifford@civicactions.com>
> To "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Alastair
> Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> Date 08/05/2023 15:17:27
> Subject Re: PDF techniques
>
> >Is there any way to recommend that folks reconsider the use of PDFs in
> >the W3C? I’d love it if the W3C followed the UK’s model:
> >
> https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/16/why-gov-uk-content-should-be-published-in-html-and-not-pdf/
> >
> >So much web traffic is mobile, and however accessible PDF/UA are, they
> >really do not scale well for smaller devices.
> >
> >And yes, ask most folks who use assistive technology about PDFs, and
> >you generally hear groans from users. They are just far too easy to
> >produce, and too hard to produce accessibly.
> >
> >When the US Federal government can’t even make 1/3rd of their PDFs
> >accessible in 2023, maybe we need to rethink the use of this format.
> >https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1569331/download
> >
> >Another thing that we could recommend is that because PDFs do not
> >reflow, that agencies need to produce a large print version, if they
> >are going to claim that their PDF is accessible. Low vision users
> >shouldn’t have to ask for a large print version of a PDF. If an
> >organization claims to produce accessible PDFs, it should include a
> >regular and large print version by default. Both of which should be
> >readable by assistive technology.
> >
> >But really, HTML, MHTML, EPUB3, there are other options, and people
> >considering PDFs need to be informed that there are limitations in the
> >format. For accessibility and user experience, the W3C has a role to
> >move people toward formats which inherently are more accessible.
> >
> >Heck, why aren’t folks just posting an OpenOffice (or Word) original
> >document, and a PDF, print friendly version? That would really require
> >the least change to workflow and probably provide the best over-all
> >approach to dealing with the future of PDFs.
> >
> >I do think in 2023, we should be considering if PDFs are part of a
> >modern approach to accessible digital content. PDFs really should be
> >seen as part of an organization’s technical debt. Yes, authors love
> >them. But they don’t love them because it is easy to produce inclusive
> >content in them.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> >Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions
> >Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer
> >https://civicactions.com <https://civicactions.com/>    |
> >https://accessibility.civicactions.com
> >http://twitter.com/mgifford |  http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford
> >
> >On May 5, 2023 at 12:18:45 PM, Alastair Campbell
> >(acampbell@nomensa.com) wrote:
> >
> >>Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Frances has been doing the much-needed work of updating old
> >>techniques, but there are some sticking points on the PDF techniques.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>If anyone can help with these aspects we can update them, otherwise
> >>we’ll just have to remove the out-dated bits:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>There is a list of alternatives
> >><
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/pdf_notes.html#pdf_notes_acc-sup_files_applications>
>
> >>to Acrobat Pro but it includes some things which don’t exist anymore.
> >>Can anyone provide an updated list?
> >>
> >>There are many examples (in each technique) that use a version 2.x of
> >>OpenOffice. Can anyone update those to a more modern version?
> >>(Probably of libre office).
> >>
> >>These are both things which are good to have, but in their current
> >>state are not helpful.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>If we no one can take those one, we can remove them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Kind regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-Alastair
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>@alastc / www.nomensa.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>