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

one of the problems I face is not the big players universities and 
companies but the small volunteer groups that just upload pdf documents 
and that's as far as they go,  churches and affinity groups want to be on 
line but the volunteers running the websites rarely have any training or 
even know what the W3C is much less what they say.

one reason I just say "avoid pdf" to these groups.

as you say is a real shame the tools are behind a paywall (which is 
technically illegal in the USA) small groups churches volunteers etc $88 
may be a significant part of their budgets


On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, John Foliot wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:15:47 -0800
> From: John Foliot <>
> To: 'Duff Johnson' <>,
>     "'Thompson, Rachel'" <>
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: PDF accessibility guidelines. WAS: Re: PDF's and Signatures
> Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 18:16:30 +0000
> Resent-From:
> 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:
> 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:
> 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 20:12:27 UTC