[Irl-dean] Access to PDF Documents

[Joshue O Connor]

Hi Gerry,

> I want to gather some opinions and, if possible, some suggestions to be put 
> to them at that meeting.

There have certainly been many interesting discussions on this list 
relating to PDF accessibility so rather than repeat them have a look 
through the list archive (or your Inbox if you keep your own archive) 
for more details.

> I am particularly interested in opinions on the standards being developed by 
> CEN and those in the States. Are they compatable? Are they the same? 
> Alternatively, do they clash in some aspects?

Big questions Gerry :-)

I would not say they clash. IMO they are are trying to often do the same 
thing but approach the issue in different ways. As I am sure you are 
aware the model adopted in the US is a more rights based approach - 
which could be called a more "push" type model which forces the market 
to adapt - especially within the context of federal business - and has 
proven to be effective but can however foster a culture of minimal 
compliance.

Europe has taken a different stance with efforts to influence the market 
to see accessibility as a part of best practice which is therefore good 
for business etc. There are of course /many/ other aspects to this but 
in short they are different models, and it is interesting to observe how 
they evolve.

Of interest in particular are Section 504 which was the first piece of 
civil legislation to give people with disabilities rights under US law. 
This then led to the more familiar Section 508 which is the US standard 
for the web. Section 508 is, in practice a watered down version of WCAG. 
[2]

>> I am also interested in how these standards, assuming that they are 
>> workable, can be disceminated and how we, as users, know that a document is 
>> developed in accordance with them.

In terms of document accessibility an American standard of interest 
would be NIMAS which covers the production/distribution of digital 
versions of textbooks and other instructional materials so they can be 
more easily converted to accessible formats, including Braille and 
text-to-speech.[3]

There is no current  standard for document accessibility in the EU. 
However there is a CEN initiative called Document Processing for 
Accessibility (CEN DPA) which is in very early stages but /could/ become 
a standard in this domain. It covers the different formats required for 
accessible information provision as well as examining relevant 
conversion processes and related structured information activities, 
scenarios of use within the publishing sector etc.

A big part of the problem in this domain is the fact that there is no 
standardisation of how the publishing industry works. Nearly each 
publishing house operates in a different way, uses different development 
methods and practices and the CEN DPA initiative is trying to get 
accessibility into this publishing workflow. There is also the problem 
of Digital Rights Management (DRM), copyright and getting publishers to 
actually release content that can be made into accessible formats.

Ideally the move towards a model where one document (say a structured 
XML/XSLT combination) could be outputted in a variety of formats 
depending on the users requirements. This could be large print, DAISY 
and so on. This is good for the publisher as it removes the tower of 
babel aspect of publishing, formalises the process and results in more 
accessible content for end users.

>> I am interested in any views on Adobe products, 
>> particularly those related to the production and reading of PDF documents.

This topic has been discussed in detail on this list previously, so do 
check the archives. As a final note I will say that PDF accessibility is 
certainly improving, Adobe are going a lot of work to improve the 
accessibility of this ubiquitous format - it is still a problem for 
users of older AT (JAWS >= 6)  who still cannot use even an accessible 
PDF - so there is still a need for content to be supplemented with 
accessible HTML or structured MS Word.

Josh

[1] http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/sec504.htm
[2] http://www.section508.gov/
[3] http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=58&TopicID=255
[4] http://www.euain.org/?q=node/9




********************************************************************

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments 
is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of 
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify 
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to 
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated 
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, 
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are 
transmitted.  We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent the views of NCBI


********************************************************************