- From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:06:06 +0100
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- CC: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hello, Andrew and all, > I can't agree that PDF can't be regarded as accessibility supported. > I can agree that support for accessibility in PDF differs across > platforms, but this is true of all technologies to some degree. Could you please provide the name of a Mac or Linux user agent that supports the accessibility features of PDF? If not, the only environment where PDF is accessibility supported is Windows (yes, not only JAWS). Therefore, I would say that PDF can only be considered accessibility supported for "closed environments" where we can ensure that only Windows is used, but never for publicly available website where users could access from many different platforms. I am not sure if "all technologies" are not supported "to some degree". As far as I know, most accessibility features of HTML are well supported on Windows, MacOS and Linux, and also on iOS (maybe Android is not so good). I think it is unrealistic to mention other platforms for which there is no AT at all, since they are not used by those users that do need the ATs. Moreover, according to the last WebAIM survey [1], VoiceOver users are already 9,2% of the total. I agree that "full 100% accessibility support" might be not possible, but leaving out 10% users with that excuse sounds a bit unfair to me. > Also, I should note that you wouldn't say "we rely on Adobe PDF" as > PDF is not Adobe's - PDF is an ISO standard, ISO 32000, so "we rely > on PDF (ISO 32000)" would be more accurate. That's true, thank you for correcting me (wink) [1] WebAIM: Screen Reader User Survey #4 Results. Primary screen reader http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/#primary Kind regards, Ramón.
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 09:54:34 UTC