Hi All,
[Note: none of the comments below pertain to any given individual; I
apologize in
advance to anyone whose toes I've rolled over....]
Now that we've all given Loretta Guarino Reid of Adobe such good advice --
and
it all is good advice; I wouldn't disagree with any of it -- there are 3
points
that we accessibility advocates should take to heart:
1. Multimedia content development is bound to follow the fastest, most
mainstream, highest
volume trends. That is, although there may be accessibility-oriented media
toolkits, we will need to focus on Acrobat, Dreamweaver, Flash, etc.,
encouraging their makers to continually improve their accessibility.
2. No matter what access-supporting features these tools have, and what
exhortations
they direct at content developers, there is no way to make a content
creation tool
whose output is automatically accessible. It's like expecting that bags of
concrete cannot
be used to make steps, only ramps. After a certain point, our "awareness
activities" need
to focus on content developers, not toolmakers.
3. We have just about reached that point with a lot of the tool companies.
I say "just
about", not that we're there. As you all know, most of these companies have
learned
about the problem, have assigned staff and resources, and are trying to
figure out a
way to improve their accessibility that is consistent with their overall
strategies and
meets the most important needs first. Our advocacy role with those
companies that have
shown the most commitment should be to support the internal champions in
every possible
way. More of a partnership than a wrestling match. And remember, there's
stilla lot
of vitriol to spill all over content developers who abuse graphics,
animations, etc., to
make their stuff exciting without attending to basic usability, let alone
accessibility!
So how about collecting some exemplary PDF files and showing how they work
better for
readers with and without disabilities? Let Loretta know about them, plus
send them as
examples to every company whose documents defy easy use.
Jim
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
[log in to unmask]
732.441.0831 v/tty
908.907.2387 wireless
732.441.0832 fax
http://www.inclusive.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Nissen
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 5:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FW: Press Release from GW Micro
>
>
> Loretta,
>
> It would be good if the authoring tools prompted to put in the ALT tags,
> so that if the PDF were converted to HTML, the ALT tags would then
> reappear for use by access technology (AT). Likewise headings should
> be marked as such, so that they reappear with heading tags; and so on.
>
> Note that screen readers are not the only way to access text stored
> in a computer. The screen reader interprets what has been put on
> the screen by an application. However there is a more direct
> approach, used by some browsers and also by Cloudworld's WordAloud
> assistive reader, where the text to be displayed is taken directly
> from the document, and the user can navigate the text structure directly.
> In such cases there is no application between the document and the AT,
> there is no interpretation of the application's view of the document,
> and there is no requirement for the user to understand the application
> or the screen reader's interpretation of the application's display.
>
> For a blind user with a screen reader:
> 1. understanding the application is difficult since the application
> is working in the visual domain with a graphical user interface;
> 2. the application has to be controlled as well as the screen reader;
> 3. the application may rely on functions provided by the operation
> system (e.g. Windows) which have to be understood by the user;
> 4. appropriate interpretion of the image on the screen can be tricky,
> e.g. whether there are columns;
> 5. the screen reader may have to be told what to look at on the screen
> so it only reads out relevant information.
>
> Thus with the screen reader approach you have a chain:
> User -> Screen Reader -> Image on screen -> Application -> Document
>
> With the 'direct' approach you have:
> User -> Assistive Reader -> Document
>
> It would be great if PDF could be converted into HTML suitable for
> use by such assistive readers.
>
> Cheers from Chiswick,
>
> John
>
> P.S. For WordAloud see www.wordaloud.co.uk
> --
> In message <[log in to unmask]>
> Loretta Guarino Reid writes:
>
> >John,
> >
> > The ultimate solution is for authoring tools to generate accessible
> > PDF (just as they should generate accessible HTML or XML). The document
> > at http://access/adobe/com/AccessGuide.pdf describes the current paths
> > for generating accessible PDF files. I trust the list of authoring
> > tools will grow over time.
> >
> > And I concede that hand-tweaking PDF files is potentially a lot of
> > work, and, worse yet, work that has to be repeated if the PDF file is
> > regenerated. But some things, like adding Alt tags, aren't hard.
> >
> > On the plus side, Acrobat 5 does a much better job of presenting the
> > information in legacy PDF files to the screen reader. It will handle
> > multiple columns, links in documents, and form fields, for instance.
> > So I'm hopeful that more files will be effectively accessible, even
> > if they aren't completely accessible.
> >
> > Loretta
>
> [John had written]
>
> >> P.S. I'm worried when Kelly says that "the accessible PDF
> >> is still going to take a lot of work on the part of the person
> >> creating the source document." If that is true, PDF is a lost
> >> cause for accessibility. It is hard enough getting people to
> >> make their web sites accessible.
>
> --
> Access the word, access the world! -- Try our WordAloud software!!
>
> John Nissen, Cloudworld Ltd., Chiswick, London, UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 845 458 3944 (local rate in the UK)
> Fax: +44 (0) 20 8742 8715
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: http://www.cloudworld.co.uk and http://www.wordaloud.co.uk
|
