Even with all the access improvements made with the Acrobat reader, there
is still the security barrier.  Documents that do not permit copying may
not be able to be read by a blind user.  These include briefs and
decisions on the web site of the U.S. Supreme court.  The Supreme Court is
not covered by Section 508.  Below, an engineer from Adobe discusses this
issue with an end user.

kelly


>From: George <[log in to unmask]>
>At the risk of starting a major flame throwing thread, I thought this
>response from someone at Acrobat Engineering, Adobe Systems, would be of
>interest to all of you.
>
>It's their final paragraph which makes interesting reading, suggesting
>that whilst documents would be accessible, they might just be tied in
>with trusted screen readers.
>
>George Bell.
>
>
>The issue of security vs accessibility is a thorny one for Acrobat. Let
>me describe where we are today:
>
>1. In Acrobat 4, there is a security bit that controls whether or not
>the
>contents (that is, text and graphics) of a document can be copied. The
>Access plugin for Acrobat 4.05 ignored that permission and always
>presented
>the text of the file for screen readers. We discovered that users (not
>necessarily blind users) were exploiting this to circumvent the document
>protections and copy the content of the file, to the dismay of the
>authors.
>
>2. In Acrobat 5, we added a new protection bit so that authors could
>separately control whether the content could be copied and whether the
>content should be exposed to screen readers. This was to provide
>authors more flexibility . They can control the accessibility of a
>document explicitly, rather than having accessibility be a side effect
>of the decision to control copying. The default value of this setting
>is to make the document accessible.
>
>We believe most authors don't intend to make a document inaccessible
>when they disable content copy.  However, the accessibility interfaces
>remain a potential path for circumventing the security mechanisms. So
>authors who are particularly concerned about controlling the content of
>their documents may decide they'd rather publish inaccessible documents
>than risk the possibility that unauthorized users could copy the
>contents.
>But this is the author's decision, and issues with the protection
>settings
>on a document should be taken to the author.
>
>3. Unfortuneately, most of the documents existing in the world today
>were
>created before the new permission existed, so accessibility and content
>copying are still tied together. And because we must honor the requests
>of
>those authors, older protected documents are not accessible in Acrobat
>5.
>
>We need to educate authors about the different security settings, and
>this
>will take time.
>
>We are also exploring whether there are ways we could let "trusted"
>assistive technology programs access these older protected documents.
>However,
>there are a number of technical problems to be solved before we know
>whether that is possible.
>
>      Loretta Guarino Reid
>      Acrobat Engineering
>      Adobe Systems


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html