- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:04:57 -0400
- To: "WAI IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Can anyone speak from experience about the difficulty of converting a poorly-structure PDF document to one that is mostly accessible? For example, if a PDF file is basically a series of text images (from, say, a magazine article), and a (sighted) laborer is available to do the after-the-fact transcription, how hard is it to create a new "accessible" PDF file? What tools are needed? Does the new version of Acrobat change any of this? Thanks. ---------- > From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> > To: Paul Stauffer 301-827-5694 FAX 301-443-6385 <STAUFFERP@cder.fda.gov> > Cc: w3c-wai-ig-request <w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org>; IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Fw: Acrobat 4.0 And PDF Accessibility > Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 11:46 AM > > The major problem with PDF is that it is difficult to know by inspection > whether it is accessible. PDF conversion can be done by taking text > and putting it into PDF, which has some hooks to get it out again (for > example by sending it to the pdf2html converter that Adobe have). > > The other option is to convert text into an image, and include the image in > the PDF. (This is one of the ways MS Publisher does HTML pages too.) This > causes a complete failure of accessibility, unless people run everything > through OCR software, a (yet-to-be-developed) program to generate structural > relationships from visual cues, and then reads it. > > Saving to bad HTML (which most word-processors can do) is better for > accessibility, in part because PDF readers are not as widely available as > HTML browsers. > > Just my 2c worth. I too am interested in the discussion. > > Charles McCN
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 1999 13:14:30 UTC