Re: PDF accessibility guidelines. WAS: Re: PDF's and Signatures

Hi John,

> It is unfortunate then that the PDF/UA Standard is hidden behind a pay-wall:
> umber=64599
> Yes, it could be argued that $88.00 won't break the bank (it might impact
> some however), but more importantly, that pay-to-play barrier is and remains
> one of the impediments for greater PDF accessibility.

Bear in mind that PDF/UA itself is a bitter disappointment to more-or-less anyone other than a software developer. The text boils down into a series of technical requirements which mean very little without also having some familiarity with ISO 32000-1, the PDF specification.

You can get a more readable version of PDF/UA’s “hard” requirements for free by checking out the PDF Association’s Matterhorn Protocol:

The PDF Association also publishes “PDF/UA in a Nutshell”, which seeks to explain and give context to the standard:

> Duff, I have never worked with the ISO before, but perhaps they could be
> encouraged to do as SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television
> Engineers) did regarding SMPTE-TT (captioning format), as noted here:
> g-standard-freely-available-widening-access
> (Almost every other SMPTE standards document is a pay-to-access document as
> well)
> The financial loss to ISO would be minimal, but the impact (both in improved
> accessibility, but also "good will") would be tangible to the ISO.

I have forwarded this idea to the relevant authorities - thanks!


Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 19:00:58 UTC