Re[2]: PDF techniques

As some folks on the AGWG represent/come from the PDF side of the 
industry (at least historically), this may be an ... interesting topic.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ / https://github.com/patrickhlauke / 
https://codepen.io/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ / https://www.deviantart.com/redux
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke


------ Original Message ------
From "Mike Gifford" <mike.gifford@civicactions.com>
To "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Alastair 
Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date 08/05/2023 15:17:27
Subject Re: PDF techniques

>Is there any way to recommend that folks reconsider the use of PDFs in 
>the W3C? I’d love it if the W3C followed the UK’s model:
>https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/16/why-gov-uk-content-should-be-published-in-html-and-not-pdf/
>
>So much web traffic is mobile, and however accessible PDF/UA are, they 
>really do not scale well for smaller devices.
>
>And yes, ask most folks who use assistive technology about PDFs, and 
>you generally hear groans from users. They are just far too easy to 
>produce, and too hard to produce accessibly.
>
>When the US Federal government can’t even make 1/3rd of their PDFs 
>accessible in 2023, maybe we need to rethink the use of this format.
>https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1569331/download
>
>Another thing that we could recommend is that because PDFs do not 
>reflow, that agencies need to produce a large print version, if they 
>are going to claim that their PDF is accessible. Low vision users 
>shouldn’t have to ask for a large print version of a PDF. If an 
>organization claims to produce accessible PDFs, it should include a 
>regular and large print version by default. Both of which should be 
>readable by assistive technology.
>
>But really, HTML, MHTML, EPUB3, there are other options, and people 
>considering PDFs need to be informed that there are limitations in the 
>format. For accessibility and user experience, the W3C has a role to 
>move people toward formats which inherently are more accessible.
>
>Heck, why aren’t folks just posting an OpenOffice (or Word) original 
>document, and a PDF, print friendly version? That would really require 
>the least change to workflow and probably provide the best over-all 
>approach to dealing with the future of PDFs.
>
>I do think in 2023, we should be considering if PDFs are part of a 
>modern approach to accessible digital content. PDFs really should be 
>seen as part of an organization’s technical debt. Yes, authors love 
>them. But they don’t love them because it is easy to produce inclusive 
>content in them.
>
>Mike
>
>
>Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions
>Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer
>https://civicactions.com <https://civicactions.com/>    |  
>https://accessibility.civicactions.com
>http://twitter.com/mgifford |  http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford
>
>On May 5, 2023 at 12:18:45 PM, Alastair Campbell 
>(acampbell@nomensa.com) wrote:
>
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>>Frances has been doing the much-needed work of updating old 
>>techniques, but there are some sticking points on the PDF techniques.
>>
>>
>>
>>If anyone can help with these aspects we can update them, otherwise 
>>we’ll just have to remove the out-dated bits:
>>
>>
>>
>>There is a list of alternatives 
>><https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/pdf_notes.html#pdf_notes_acc-sup_files_applications> 
>>to Acrobat Pro but it includes some things which don’t exist anymore. 
>>Can anyone provide an updated list?
>>
>>There are many examples (in each technique) that use a version 2.x of 
>>OpenOffice. Can anyone update those to a more modern version? 
>>(Probably of libre office).
>>
>>These are both things which are good to have, but in their current 
>>state are not helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>>If we no one can take those one, we can remove them.
>>
>>
>>
>>Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>-Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>@alastc / www.nomensa.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 8 May 2023 15:34:16 UTC