RE: Re[2]: PDF techniques

+1 to Julie’s response.

Jennie Delisi, MA, Certified Professional in Web Accessibility (CPWA)
Accessibility Analyst | Office of Accessibility
Minnesota IT Services | Partners in Performance
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
O: 651-201-1135
Information Technology for Minnesota Government | mn.gov/mnit<http://mn.gov/mnit>
[Minnesota IT Services Logo]
[Facebook logo]<https://www.facebook.com/MN.ITServices>[LinkedIn logo]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/minnesota-it-services/>[Twitter logo]<https://twitter.com/mnit_services>

From: Julie Romanowski <julie@knowbility.org>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 4:53 PM
To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: PDF techniques

This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center.

________________________________
I can't get into this right now as I need to focus on AccessU, but PDFs do serve a purpose and can be very accessible. We can discuss more in a week or two.

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 10:34 AM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
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<mailto:mike.gifford@civicactions.com>>
To "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; "Alastair
Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto: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://civicactions.com/>    |
>https://accessibility.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<mailto: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<http://www.nomensa.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>