Comments on: The debate on PDF continues http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/ Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:41:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Graham Robbins http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-24081 Graham Robbins Tue, 15 May 2007 16:44:13 +0000 http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-24081 The portability of PDF files rightly makes them a popular format so it's clear that accessibility issues must be considered. The article hints at the underlying issue when it says "it is very easy to put that document up online" - PDF documents are created by the wrong department. Whereas most web content for a large organisation goes past one or more web developers with an understanding of accessibility - PDF documents can be produced by anyone and probably uploaded through a CMS without a developer in sight. SiteMorse - a UK automated site testing service - can routinely test for the accessibility of a site's PDF documents and verify the links inside work. During one of their recent surveys nearly three quarters of PDF documents hosted on the websites of FTSE 100 companies had accessibility issues - a problem far greater in the US where just over 11% of tested PDF files passed accessibility checks: www.sitemorse.com/survey The portability of PDF files rightly makes them a popular format so it’s
clear that accessibility issues must be considered. The article hints at
the underlying issue when it says “it is very easy to put that document
up online” - PDF documents are created by the wrong department.

Whereas most web content for a large organisation goes past one or more
web developers with an understanding of accessibility - PDF documents
can be produced by anyone and probably uploaded through a CMS without a developer in sight.

SiteMorse - a UK automated site testing service - can routinely test for
the accessibility of a site’s PDF documents and verify the links inside
work.

During one of their recent surveys nearly three quarters of PDF
documents hosted on the websites of FTSE 100 companies had accessibility issues - a problem far greater in the US where just over 11% of tested PDF files passed accessibility checks:

http://www.sitemorse.com/survey

]]> By: Adrian Higginbotham http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-22649 Adrian Higginbotham Thu, 03 May 2007 20:22:27 +0000 http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-22649 certainly text only pages used to be an alternative 5 or more years ago. I'm not sure any of us would look so kindly nowadays on any organisation that opted for that route in the current climate. A kind comparison might suggest that pdf accessibility today is in a similar position to that of Website accessibility in .99 but look how long its taken for the Web to move on - do we really want to encourage those businesses out there producing electronic materials for offline reading to take the same route that we did. sure we're getting somewhere now but I'd be disappointed if I didn't think the one thing we have learned is that there must be a better way. yes those of you who publish in .pdf make sure that your information is accessible but remember also that an alternative version is intended to give an equivalent means of accessing the same experience. For me at least a document which can freely be copied, edited, and can only be read online is not an equivalent. Fail to give me access and I'll be after you as fast as Struan, Hugh, or the other panellists but I do disagree with the contention that html is the best alternative to pdf. certainly text only pages used to be an alternative 5 or more years ago. I’m not sure any of us would look so kindly nowadays on any organisation that opted for that route in the current climate. A kind comparison might suggest that pdf accessibility today is in a similar position to that of Website accessibility in .99 but look how long its taken for the Web to move on - do we really want to encourage those businesses out there producing electronic materials for offline reading to take the same route that we did. sure we’re getting somewhere now but I’d be disappointed if I didn’t think the one thing we have learned is that there must be a better way. yes those of you who publish in .pdf make sure that your information is accessible but remember also that an alternative version is intended to give an equivalent means of accessing the same experience. For me at least a document which can freely be copied, edited, and can only be read online is not an equivalent. Fail to give me access and I’ll be after you as fast as Struan, Hugh, or the other panellists but I do disagree with the contention that html is the best alternative to pdf.

]]> By: Henny http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-22637 Henny Thu, 03 May 2007 15:24:51 +0000 http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-22637 Hi Adrian, No one is suggesting doing away with PDF because, as you correctly point out, they serve a particular and different purpose to HTML. They are after all intended for print not reading online. In an ideal world PDF should be an addition to what is already available on the website providing a suitable printable format for that information. The same goes for text versions of websites. By all means have one but it is not an alternative to making the main website accessible but rather an add-on to what should already be an accessible website. Henny Hi Adrian,

No one is suggesting doing away with PDF because, as you correctly point out, they serve a particular and different purpose to HTML. They are after all intended for print not reading online.

In an ideal world PDF should be an addition to what is already available on the website providing a suitable printable format for that information.

The same goes for text versions of websites. By all means have one but it is not an alternative to making the main website accessible but rather an add-on to what should already be an accessible website.

Henny

]]> By: Adrian Higginbotham http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-22630 Adrian Higginbotham Thu, 03 May 2007 12:50:21 +0000 http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/pdf/lawyer-opens-the-debate-on-pdf-accessibility-and-the-law/#comment-22630 I have to say I don't entirely agree with the findings of the article. of course accessible information is essential but I don't think that pdf has to equal an accessibility barrier. The danger with pieces like this is that people will see html equals accessibility and so stop trying to improve the access of their PDFs. .PDF files serve a particular and different purpose to html pages a purpose of which I often have a need so I for one don't want to see html replace pdf. indeed pdfs aren't always perfect but if we encourage people to give up on them now then they'll never get any better. are we still advocating text only web pages? - no, there's a reason for that. I have to say I don’t entirely agree with the findings of the article. of course accessible information is essential but I don’t think that pdf has to equal an accessibility barrier. The danger with pieces like this is that people will see html equals accessibility and so stop trying to improve the access of their PDFs. .PDF files serve a particular and different purpose to html pages a purpose of which I often have a need so I for one don’t want to see html replace pdf. indeed pdfs aren’t always perfect but if we encourage people to give up on them now then they’ll never get any better. are we still advocating text only web pages? - no, there’s a reason for that.

]]>