- From: Robert Neff <rcn@fenix2.dol-esa.gov>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:29:28 -0400
- To: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I have found your contributions to this group most enlightening, Rob> thanks so please don't take this wrong, but I would argue that the site you reference (Joint Warfare System) is an example of BAD AND INAPPROPRIATE use of the Portable Document Format! Rob> Disagree, what is your definition of GOOD and APPROPRIATE? PDF offers better security than a read only file. If you are in the middle of a solicitation, you can lock your documents so they can be printed but not altered. We also built in house forms with PDF and found them to be useful, especially if we want to put tags and buttons for viewing and printing. It all comes down to your needs, cost and timeline! Adobe Acrobat provides many tools to solve many solutions. I am satisfied with the decision to use Adobe product. This was GOOD and APPROPRIATE for us! I could not find any compelling reason why the hard copy printing was of critical importance for the documents you cite. ROB> In the technical environment, contractors are normally required to produce hard copies for the client. In addition, the web provided the user group with hard copies to review and edit. I have many years of experience generating documents and manuals for the hardware and software engineering environment. Now that more information is available on the web, there are many of us who prefer the hardcopy, because our eyes are tired or old!!! Plus I can read it on the train or flight.. Therefore, print is very important! Most of these files were generated in MS OFFICE and other file formats. Several of the documents came from multiple sources. In this case, it is far easier to generate one file. Also when designing for a web site the most important issue is know your primary audience and in this case, it was a highly technical audience. At the time WAI was unknown. Flat PDF creation can be very easy for the authors of print documents. This is just about its ONLY virtue. Rob>Disagree and consider this to be a FLAME to PDF. Given that one has purchased the right (somewhat expensive) utilities, Rob>Acrobat Reader is freeware. Acrobat Exchange is the product you need to convert the file to PDF. At the time, the cost benefit proved it was better to buy it! one can publish PDF in the same manner as printing. Rob> Huh? Not sure understand your point. You can convert files to PDF via the print command, but you select PDF Writer or Print to File and Distill it. Its easy. Graphical charts, diagrams, pictures, etc. take about the same bandwidth and work whether they are rendered as GIFs or PostScript. Rob> Disagree. This takes more time to generate from multiple documents or a WORD document. The workflow is to cut and paste, convert to a GIF or JPEG and test. The file size of the graphics we had would be quite large. Albeit today there is a Powerpoint to HTML converter, but the images become large GIFs and need to handled properly. PDF is an easier way to go. Have also used VISIO Professional to convert images, works well but you may need to tweak in Photoshop. PDF bookmarks add little overhead to the file size, but require effort (and are more difficult than internal HTML links). Rob> Disagree, it depends how they are used. Of course, if an author was thinking of the reader, s/he would be probably be writing in HTML in the first place! Rob> Again, depends on you environment and how much time you have. The project was producing large technical documents and engineers writing in HTML does not make sense. Besides, this is not their purpose! By your remark, then ever office should be writing in HTML. However, HTML is not as powerful for WORD and HTML Web authoring tools arent there yet! In the few files I sampled, the JWARS authors don't bother with bookmarks. Rob> File size was already too large on most documents before we started. I did not want to make them so they would take longer to download. We also did not have time to bookmark each file. This was laborsome and did not see the need to purchase automated tools for this. The ONLY thing JWARS gains from PDF is consistent page numbering from their web documents to print documents. Rob> Wrong. People from all over the world were able to print and view what was on their screen, with a laser or a inkjet. No one ever complained! And remember your audience. The guarantee of "printing right" is illusionary in any case: what if the person is using a poor quality printer, the wrong size paper, Rob> 8.5 x 11 in the US - or an A number in Europe. Besides the world is not perfect! If you have a problem, then you e-mail the webmaster. I always replied within two days! monochrome for a color document? Rob>These print fine in Black and White, Look better in color! I always test a document AND HTML page to ensure it prints well in both color and black and white. I have seen two justifications for PDF that are (somewhat) better than your example: 1) The transmission of print forms (e.g., an IRS 1040). That is, documents that are printed locally, filled out (by hand), and then SNAIL MAILED back to the source (where they would, no doubt, be data processed). 2) The transmission of sensitive (e.g., protected by copyright) works to members (e.g., college students) by an institution. The document could be posted to a public site, but would only be useable to those who had the secret password (since PDF files can be encrypted). Rob> These are neither better or worse, rather they are the multiple ways PDF can be used! Without getting into the realm of accessibility, there are severe flaws with the above rationalizations for the use of PDF. Rob> Disagree It is twice as much work to do both HTML and PDF, so, if you had to do it all over, why would you bother with PDF? Rob> TO benefit our PWD brethren! Do you think the quality is that much improved? Rob>For sighted people, yes. (If this is the case, I would argue that you need to take another look at your HTML documents!) Rob> Cant speak for the people there. Is the person who is doing it now aware of the ADA legal requirement to make electronic documents accessible? PDF is NOT accessible. Rob> Adobe is aware of the problems and is working with the WAI community to resolve. Remember when PDF came out, WIA was not an issue. PDF documents can be made accessible if converted. Adobe's actions are a stop-gap measure designed to delay legal action. I could not find HTML versions of most document in the JWARS library. Robert, I realize that you have moved, but does your replacement know his responsibilities? Rob>I left before the WAI became an issue in the federal government, so I will not speak for someone else. However, there is a move in the Federal government to address these issues. And like commercial entities, people are trying to address these issues with an increasing workload and no increase in people or resources. Would it help if we in the W3C WAI pestered him? Rob> I do not think that is professional. The site is geared toward a specific audience - technical and may not interface with PWDs. If I were to pester anyone, I would take the time to review Federal, State and Local web sites. These have a higher use of PWD than a technical site buried deep. Also, if you pester these people, you efforts will be noted but you may also create a hostile attitude inside DoD toward WAI. This is a technical web site, if you have a problem with a document, then e-mail the webmaster and ask him to provide a text version for you. But why do that, when you can e-mail it to Adobe and they will convert it for you. My personal thoughts are, why file a complaint against a Technical web site with a specific audience where the documents were created years ago and may have very little PWD traffic. In the latest release of maybe 508 (cant remember which one) it states something like this...the government does not have to comply if they can prove this would cause undue work and cost. Budgets are shrinking...pick and choose your protests carefully. I believe the legal advantage gained for this specific action above would hinder progress made. I am sure this statement will cause responses.... If anyone would like to respond, please cut this out and respond. Can ANYONE reference a GOOD AND APPROPRIATE use of PDF files? Rob> It appears that you are very anti-PDF or have a different perspective from the many people who have found it to be a useful tool. I do not share your experiences. Therefore, I doubt any examples I would provide meet with your approval. Rob>My apologies to the WAI Interest Group, but was not sure how to interpret the response. Hence, I felt the decency to justify my comments on-line. Bruce, if you will, if this response hasn't satisfied your remarks, please take this offline and send an e-mail to me. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Bailey [SMTP:bbailey@clark.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 4:57 PM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Cc: Robert Neff; T. V. Raman Subject: Re: Re: Adobe And TRACE Launch Enhanced PDF Access Via Email Dear Robert, I have found your contributions to this group most enlightening, so please don't take this wrong, but I would argue that the site you reference (Joint Warfare System) is an example of BAD AND INAPPROPRIATE use of the Portable Document Format! I could not find any compelling reason why the hard copy printing was of critical importance for the documents you cite. Flat PDF creation can be very easy for the authors of print documents. This is just about its ONLY virtue. Given that one has purchased the right (somewhat expensive) utilities, one can publish PDF in the same manner as printing. Graphical charts, diagrams, pictures, etc. take about the same bandwidth and work whether they are rendered as GIFs or PostScript. PDF bookmarks add little overhead to the file size, but require effort (and are more difficult than internal HTML links). Of course, if an author was thinking of the reader, s/he would be probably be writing in HTML in the first place! In the few files I sampled, the JWARS authors don't bother with bookmarks. The ONLY thing JWARS gains from PDF is consistent page numbering from their web documents to print documents. The guarantee of "printing right" is illusionary in any case: what if the person is using a poor quality printer, the wrong size paper, or monochrome for a color document? I have seen two justifications for PDF that are (somewhat) better than your example: 1) The transmission of print forms (e.g., an IRS 1040). That is, documents that are printed locally, filled out (by hand), and then SNAIL MAILED back to the source (where they would, no doubt, be data processed). 2) The transmission of sensitive (e.g., protected by copyright) works to members (e.g., college students) by an institution. The document could be posted to a public site, but would only be useable to those who had the secret password (since PDF files can be encrypted). Without getting into the realm of accessibility, there are severe flaws with the above rationalizations for the use of PDF. It is twice as much work to do both HTML and PDF, so, if you had to do it all over, why would you bother with PDF? Do you think the quality is that much improved? (If this is the case, I would argue that you need to take another look at your HTML documents!) Is the person who is doing it now aware of the ADA legal requirement to make electronic documents accessible? PDF is NOT accessible. Adobe's actions are a stop-gap measure designed to delay legal action. I could not find HTML versions of most document in the JWARS library. Robert, I realize that you have moved, but does your replacement know his responsibilities? Would it help if we in the W3C WAI pestered him? Can ANYONE reference a GOOD AND APPROPRIATE use of PDF files? Robert Neff wrote: > I have found PDF to be an asset - when used right. I can deliver a > document that can be seen AND PRINTED by anyone with the viewer. This can > deliver technical and graphical documents and display tables, graphs, and > graphics. > > I have had to prepare and post many technical documents while maintaining > content and security and this was the easiest solution. See > http://www.dtic.mil/jwars/library.html - I have since moved on. PDF was a > blessing. We received multiple formats and were able to post to the web > with ease. At that time the HTML authoring tools were ancient. Though > they have improved, I do not wish to think of the mess if I still had to > put these up in HTML. Oh, I could post them in HTML and make graphics out > of the images and tables... But I could not guarantee they would print > right! > > PDF has its uses! > > Please note, at the time of the documents' creation, WAI was not well > known. If I had to do it all over, I would still convert the files to PDF > and post, but then I would also then convert to HTML and post. > > We used the bookmarks and thumbnail. We would not use it for every file as > this increase the file size. > > /rob > > -----Original Message----- -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Bailey [SMTP:bbailey@clark.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 10:41 AM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Cc: T. V. Raman Subject: Re: Adobe And TRACE Launch Enhanced PDF Access Via Email If this is what people want, then it is doubtless a good thing that you have made it available. IMHO: 1) Far too many web authors favor form over content and that PDF facilitates this. PDF is reminiscent of frames-another bad idea that just won't go away. 2) The majority of PDF documents don't use the available features (like thumbnails and bookmarks). The most common rational for the use of PDF is to force multiple columns (an okay idea in print, a lousy idea on the screen). A document's file size is increased by roughly a factor of ten (over the plain text version). The cost/benefit ratio of PDF is extremely poor, so much so that it must be obvious, even to dunderheads. 3) The form-based tool is compatible with Lynx and the Access plug-in for the Acrobat Reader works with screen readers. The conversion algorithm has the same flaws in any case as the email version. I am curious about where my logic is flawed. I've read the Adobe propaganda, and I must confess that I just don't get it. In my web-surfing experience, PDF are becoming less common (thank goodness). I understand that PDF predates HTML and that some important sites are wedded to the PDF concept (usually sites that see their mission as providing print resources and not information). I don't understand why the request for email conversion was so popular. Doubtless this has all been debated before. I do not want to generate a lot of traffic on this news group about this issue. I would like to be directed to resources that address my questions and concerns. Is there a news group dedicated to PDF? Better yet would be a web site that is not run by Adobe. Best would be an archive (of discussion threads) where those of us who are new to the PDF vs HTML debate can go to get up to speed. Thanks. T. V. Raman wrote: > Adobe And TRACE Launch Enhanced PDF Access Via Email > --New service enables conversion via email attachments > (http://access.adobe.com) > > Adobe Systems and the TRACE Research Center are happy to > announce a new service to enhance the accessibility of PDF > documents to visually impaired users. > > Ever since we launched our popular server-based > accessibility solutions on http://access.adobe.com in > March 1997, the single most oft voiced request has been the need > to convert PDF documents on a local disk or CDROM to ASCII > or HTML. In response, we have set up a a conversion service > hosted by the TRACE Research Center (http://trace.wisc.edu). > > You can send PDF documents as email attachments to: > > pdf2txt@sun.trace.wisc.edu-for plain text > pdf2html@sun.trace.wisc.edu -- for HTML > > and receive the result of the conversion in the reply. > > Adobe would like to thank Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden and the > TRACE Research Center for helping us host this service. > > Attached is a summary of accessibility services provided by > Adobe. Our WWW site (http://access.adobe.com) has been > revised in conjunction with the launch of this new service; > please take a momement to visit us and refresh your > bookmarks. > > --Raman (and the access.adobe.com team)
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 1998 18:29:12 UTC