- From: <accessys@smart.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:44:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Thompson, Rachel" <rsthompson2@ua.edu>
- cc: Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1501222243510.5020@cygnus.smart.net>
until I find a way that works reliably I tell everyone to not consider pdf documents to be accessible Bob On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Thompson, Rachel wrote: > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:06:57 -0600 > From: "Thompson, Rachel" <rsthompson2@ua.edu> > To: Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com>, > "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> > Subject: PDF accessibility guidelines. WAS: Re: PDF's and Signatures > Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:07:55 +0000 > Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > > Hi, all. > > This is a question I have received several times lately: What > accessibility guidelines should our web teams and instructors follow when > making PDFs available online? It seems like there is not a consensus with > this group (and you are the group I look to for guidance on these issues). > What guidelines have other organizations adopted? Any ideas or feedback > are welcome. > > Rachel > > Dr. Rachel S. Thompson > Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility > Center for Instructional Technology > University of Alabama > http://accessibility.ua.edu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com> > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:47 AM > To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> > Subject: Re: PDF's and Signatures > Resent-From: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:47 AM > >> I have to disagree slightly with Andyıs claim PDFs *are* covered-by >> and included in WCAG > > To a degree, There are many facets of PDF that WCAG does not cover. For a > complete understanding of PDF accessibility it is necessary to look to > PDF/UA, the ISO standard for accessible PDF. > >> , and in fact there is a whole section of Success Techniques provided by >> the W3C. Please see: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/pdf.html > > While many of these are useful, some are simply wrong, misleading, or > both. Additionally, these techniques represent only a modest fraction of > whatıs necessary to guarantee an accessible PDF. > >> I think the issue(s) you will find problematic include how to render >> that wet signature to non-visual users (itıs not text, so OCR etc. will >> struggle to dealinclude a graphic of a signature, you will of course need >> to also provide appropriate alt text (I would likely counsel this: >> alt=²[Signature: Mickey Mouse]²) > > One must distinguish between an ink signature (which is simply a graphics > object requiring alt text to be accessible) and a digital signature, which > is a property of the document itself, and should be exposed by AT > accordingly just as is other document metadata. > >> I am personally unaware of the current state of accessibility and >> digital signatures on PDFs, although my first guess is that it is likely >> not perfect, buta robust and long-standing (if still imperfect) tool in >> their shed. Perhaps Andrew might have a comment here (?) > > So far as I am aware the digital signature UIs in Adobeıs tools are as > accessible as the rest of Adobe Acrobat / Readerıs UI. This has *nothing* > to do, however, with an ³ink² signature, which is simply a pretty picture > on the page, and like all other pictures, needs alt text to expose it to > all forms of AT equally. > > Duff. > > > > >
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 03:57:11 UTC