- From: Robert Neff <rneff@moon.jic.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:15:23 -0700
- To: "IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
From experience - a lot of work! ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net> To: WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>; Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Acrobat 4.0 And PDF Accessibility > 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 22:19:01 UTC