- From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:02:36 +0100
- To: Ginger Claassen <ginger.claassen@gmx.de>
- CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi, Ginger and all, I am not talking about the possibility of just reading the text of a PDF document, but about the possibility to read it in an accessible way. I've prepared a simple example of an "accessible" PDF document to illustrate the issue. You can access it here (I apologise in advance if I missed something and it's not completely accessible): http://ramoncorominas.com/stellar_classification.pdf This document has a 2-level heading structure, 2 links, an image with alternative text, several lists and a data table. Now, using MacOS: - Can you navigate the PDF structure using the headings? - Can you obtain a list of links? Can you activate those links? - Can you read the alternative text of the image? Do you even know that there is an image? - Can you navigate through lists and list items? Do you even know that there are lists? - Can you navigate the table and understand its data? Do you even know that there is a table? If the answer is "yes", please tell me how you do it. I'm sincerely interested on that, since I've not being able to find a tool that reads the PDF accessibility tagging on MacOS. If the answer is "no", then I cannot say that PDF accessibility features are "accessibility supported", unless they are only available in a closed environment only Windows platforms are used. Regards, Ramón. Ginger wrote: > Thanks for your input but you are quite wrong here. For blind MacOS > users it is not necessary to spend any money on any kind of software in > order to read a pdf document unless our Mac here in the office was > magically equipped for us because they had a glass ball at Apple and > knew that we are blind here. It is no problem at all to read those > documents as long as they are readable i.e. are not composed out of > graphics which would be the same for Windows users. > So, unless you ment something completely different which I did not > understand you are wrong here.
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 22:03:06 UTC