W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2015

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

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 19:50:59 +0000
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, 'Duff Johnson' <duff@duff-johnson.com>, "'Thompson, Rachel'" <rsthompson2@ua.edu>
CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB27286B6863311E05BD566D99B360@BY2PR03MB272.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> 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.

Agreed.  It's not just about people buying the standard to follow it but all of the tools and accessibility platforms out there like AMP that can test and reference the standard specifics if it were open.  Training on the standard could also be more widely taught and materials created by various institutions.

Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com

703-637-8957 (o) 
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter


-----Original Message-----
From: John Foliot [mailto:john@foliot.ca] 
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:16 PM
To: 'Duff Johnson'; 'Thompson, Rachel'
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: PDF accessibility guidelines. WAS: Re: PDF's and Signatures

Duff Johnson wrote:
>
>
> Others have voted - as you've read - against PDF altogether. I 
> understand the frustration.

I think the real answer is to use the correct tool for the job. PDFs have a place, and as Duff notes, can be made pretty darned accessible (accessibility being a long-tail proposition - you will never, ever, reach
100%)


> Software developers have been slow to
> support the accessibility features in PDF. Following publication of 
> PDF/UA in 2012, however, the pace of such development has accelerated 
> dramatically, and new products are coming on the market. Big banks are 
> already delivering their statements as tagged PDF files.
>
> More importantly, PDF/UA means that you can tell them exactly what you 
> want. Simply say to software developers: "Hey, we want your software 
> to support PDF/UA!"

It is unfortunate then that the PDF/UA Standard is hidden behind a pay-wall:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csn
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.

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:
https://www.smpte.org/news-events/news-releases/smpte-makes-closed-captionin
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.

JF
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 19:51:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:54 UTC