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: Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:10:19 -0500
Message-Id: <D95D3B4D-B846-49A1-A194-471EF8E25B25@duff-johnson.com>
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi John,

> Lack of training is indeed a problem, but that very same lack of training
> can also result in HTML that is inaccessible to some or many, so demonizing
> PDF is slightly unfair.

Indeed. If a user has to knowledge to author an accessible HTML document, there’s no reason in principle why they can’t author an accessible PDF. They may not have the right software, but the real at-hand issue’s far more likely to be that they are ignorant of and/or ignoring accessibility needs in the first place.

>> 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
> To be clear, it is not a tool that is behind the firewall, it is a copy of
> the standard

Yes. PDF/UA is a (short) document; specifically, a publication of the ISO under their copyright. Essentially, most of PDF/UA-1 is a set of specific technical requirements for authoring software. 

Often overlooked… PDF/UA conformance also applies to consuming software - in other words, there are also conformance requirements for interactive viewers and AT software. PDF/UA is not just for the documents themselves.

> (and in a clear wrinkle of possible irony, I would hope that
> those 'paid-for' standards documents - likely in PDF - are accessible as
> well. Duff?)

As a matter of fact, it is. PDF/UA was recently updated with some minor edits; this 2014 edition itself complies with PDF/UA.

More information:


Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 04:10:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:51 UTC