W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Removing PDFs and accessibility

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1203291115200.6889@cygnus.smart.net>


couldn't have presented it better

my feeling is at the current level of technology and support PDF's can 
never be considered accessible out side a closed AND supported 

and that is the way I am reviewing things until shown otherwise.


On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, [ISO-8859-1] Ramón Corominas wrote:

> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:58:15 +0200
> From: "[ISO-8859-1] Ramón Corominas" <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Removing PDFs and accessibility
> Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:59:39 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Hi all,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick said:
>> VoiceOver with PDF documents on the Mac is not as good as
>> the Windows options but the document content can be read
>> and used.
> Indeed, it is not good at all. I do not even consider PDF to be 
> "accessibility supported" on Mac. As far as I know there is no reader for Mac 
> that can access headings, tables, lists, or any other semantic tagging, nor 
> text alternatives for images or form controls; using VoiceOver it is not 
> posslbe to activate links or fill in forms within a PDF.
> In practice, VoiceOver cannot read mucho more than the document's text, so I 
> would say that a PDF document is not more accessible on Mac than a plain text 
> file.
>> it is worth noting that AGIMO in the federal government
>> agrees that well-authored PDF documents can meet WCAG
>> 2.0 and can be used within the government to comply
>> with the National Transition Strategy
> According to Conformance Requirement #4, PDF documents can only conform to 
> WCAG 2.0 if the techniques used to create it are accessibility supported. 
> Since accessibility support for PDF only exists on Windows platforms, I think 
> the only possibility for PDFs to conform is if they are intended to be 
> available only in a -Windows- closed environment (section 2, point c) in the 
> technical definition of "accessibility support").
>> As stated, the PDF Sufficient Techniques are now available,
>> so technically an agency can rely on PDF by using the WCAG
>> 2.0 PDF Sufficient Techniques and all applicable General
>> Techniques, and will be considered to be complying with
>> the NTS.
> "Sufficient" Techniques are only "sufficient" if accessibility support does 
> exist. For example, most -all?- Flash Sufficient Techniques are only 
> supported on Windows platforms -and only if we "forget" that the Flash 
> installer is not accessible at all-, so I would not consider these techniques 
> to be "sufficient" in terms of WCAG 2.0 conformance, unless you are in a 
> closed environment.
>> There are many reasons why you may want to offer HTML
>> documents, but you should also recognize that there are
>> valid reasons for using PDF documents, and if you find
>> that these reasons make sense for you, use PDF.  But,
>> when you do use PDF, follow best practices for making
>> sure the PDF documents meet WCAG 2.0.
> I agree that there are many reasons to use PDF documents. Bu, in terms of 
> accessibility, IMHO relying on PDF documents as the only way to provide 
> information can never meet WCAG 2.0 in an open, "World Wide" Web environment.
> Regards,
> Ramón
> -- 
> Ramón Corominas
> Accessibility Specialist
> Technosite - Fundación ONCE
> W: www.technosite.es
> T: +34 91 121 0330
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 15:20:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:39 UTC