(unknown charset) Re: Inaccessibility of EN301-549 (PDF format) Standards for screen reader users

Hi all,
Sighs profoundly.
Speaking personally?  this is a perfect example of Canada, or any 
government deciding that all people sharing a label are the same.  This 
includes  the attitude that generalized interchangeable screen readers 
exists, that all blind people use the same technology.  that testing with 
a single example makes you compliant.  Further speaking personally I feel 
that Canada's situation is made profoundly worse by the government asking a 
single source i. e. the CNIB.  To be sure I respect the confusion. 
Individuals living with  disabilities   have rather poor public relations, 
with Canada making the 
situation   worse by automatically assuming that if you experience a 
disability,  you automatically have a team of people who can work around 
accessibility problems..i. e. is there not an able bodied person to help 
you?
Yes, that is public policy here, in training if not in writing, and it is 
wrong. especially when that attitude, even if well intended puts further 
roadblocks in place.
I mean honestly, how does that  not  read as  stereotyping?  I just read 
an exchange  from a person experiencing both blindness and motor issues, 
seeking to use a tool..that was not jaws.
What is the government going to tell  hem, please be disabled as we define 
the term?

Anyway, I have not tried this test on the pdf document, but have you  sent 
a copy 
to the robobraille tool?

www.robobraille.org
sending a copy to convert at robobraille.org typed correctly of course, 
with the desired  format int he subject line, might produce better 
results.
I did just test html wise, using the latest edition of Lynx..which gets 
updated regularly.
the space bar thing naturally failed. or seems to..I did not try very 
hard.
A note about the serious need for PDF  standard clarity.
In Ontario for example the government has created pdf smart forms.  these 
are    programs, requiring very specific adobe software, which now adobe 
mandates is adobe 8.
meaning a person experiencing any number of disabilities must upgrade 
their adaptive technology to run a very specific program for government 
access..and it is allot of things.
Personally I have been seeking a solution since February, only to be told 
the smart form is ahem AODA compliant, with Jaws..i. e. all people use 
the same tool.
Please please please put into standards somewhere that PDF  files must not 
require specific software  in order to be code compliant.
If I send a file to robobraille, it generates a you need Adobe 8 
message..and some well meaning people think I should just use Jaws.
That the computer set up involved for that would trigger a seizure leads 
to..and do not  You have an able bodied person to help you?
No individual experiencing a disability should be told they must have 
another  person around, with a government thinking that is suitable 
policy.
Rant over,
Kare




On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, Sailesh Panchang wrote:

> Hello All,
> I learn that Accessibility Standards Canada has published an html version
> of the current EN301549. I am told that  "It is not perfect either, but a
> lot easier to handle" compared with the PDF EN version.
> https://accessible.canada.ca/en-301-549-accessibility-requirements-ict-products-and-services-1
> Thanks,
> Sailesh Panchang | +1 (571) 344-1765
> Technical Solutions Architect
>
> Email: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
> Deque Systems Inc | - Accessibility for Good | www.deque.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 10:18 PM Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Duff,
>> Perhaps a consolation for ETSI that ISO too has issues with their PDF docs!
>> Good to note what task the PDF Association is currently working on in
>> reference to Guide 71.
>> But through this thread, I am trying specifically to get more people
>> and AT / SR users to advocate for an accessible EN 301549. Surely the
>> standard should itself meet the accessibility criteria for e-docs. I
>> request help in that regard please.
>> Thanks,
>> Sailesh
>>
>>
>> On 7/7/22, Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> ISO has similar (but different) problems with their PDF publishing. For
>>> example, in ISO standards (similar to ETSI, ISO also publishes in PDF)
>> list
>>> items are tagged as paragraphs.
>>>
>>> Under special arrangement with ISO, ISO 14289 is (still) the only ISO
>>> standard to conform to ISO 14289 (PDF/UA).
>>>
>>> We (the PDF Association) are currently finalizing a report for ISO that
>>> assesses, at a high level, ISO products and processes for accessibility
>>> consistent with ISO’s Guide 71.
>>>
>>> https://www.iso.org/standard/57385.html
>>>
>>> I encourage you to review Guide 71 (which, unlike most ISO publications,
>> is
>>> freely available) for similar purposes…. and let ISO (as well as IEC)
>> know
>>> of your findings.
>>>
>>> Duff Johnson
>>>
>>> ISO 32000 & ISO 14289, Project Leader
>>> PDF Association, CEO
>>>
>>> https://www.pdfa.org
>>>
>>> p  +1.617 283 4226
>>> e  duff.johnson@pdfa.org
>>> l  http://www.linkedin.com/in/duffjohnson/
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2022, at 14:54, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Listers,
>>>> I had highlighted the subject issue in 2019  but the issues still
>> persist.
>>>> So I followed up again just a few weeks ago by writing to ETSI.
>>>> For instance at present the data tables  in Annex A (A.1 and A.2) that
>>>> start on page 90 of version 3.2.1 (March 2021) do not convey
>> relationship
>>>> between header cells and data cells.
>>>> The tables are not tagged to convey the column-span property. It appears
>>>> the PDF is created by saving Word files as PDF and no further tagging is
>>>> done.
>>>> So it is almost impossible to comprehend the table structure using a
>>>> screen reader.
>>>> This problem would also be caught by testing with AT (if done) before
>> the
>>>> PDF is published publicly.
>>>> So it is important for users who depend on AT / accessibility features
>> to
>>>> write to ESPsupport@etsi.org, convey their experience and urge ETSI to
>>>> make necessary changes.
>>>> It is not good that the standards  themselves pose accessibility
>>>> problems.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sailesh
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>