W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: PDF accessibility and complex script languages.

From: Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:06:25 -0500
Message-Id: <2D45639B-2AC6-44AB-8276-044995CB0A01@duff-johnson.com>
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Andrew,

> The results were 
> 
> 2) exporting as text file - generated text file used the visible text in PDF, it did not use the contents of the ActualText tags
> 
> 3) cutting and pasting - pasted text was based on the visible text in PDF, it did not use the contents of the ActualText tags

Do consider that these are very distinct functions, and that consuming implementations are within their rights to ignore ActualText if it’s not appropriate to the user’s needs.

For example, when exporting a document to HTML it may or may not be appropriate to replace images with ActualText. Maybe the images themselves should be exported… (I am leaving aside the question of how to represent ActualText in HTML… that’s for another day…)

On the other hand, when a search-engine consumes PDF, ActualText should *always* be used, otherwise there’s nothing to index… :-)

Duff.
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2016 17:06:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 January 2016 16:39:04 UTC