Re: PDF accessibility (was Re: N:Vision CFL's)

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
news:T72dndJVbM9J2pbbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> I'm currently using a 24" Sony flat
> >> screen (LCD) monitor set for 1600 x 1200
> >> pixels and 32-bit color.
> >
> > Oh.
> >
> > One might assume anyone running at
> > 1600 by 1200 is NOT incredibly sight-
> > impaired, at least in a way that affects
> > the ability to read PDFs on a normal
> > PC setup.

> One would then be laboring under a
> misconception.  When I view PDFs I
> immediately scale them to full screen.
> That makes the letters big and the
> images clearer.  If the type is still
> too small I click the "+" until I can
> read it.

I just don't know of very many sight-impaired people who can navigate at
that resolution because the default dialogs, controls and other visual
elements become too small to be readable or workable.  Visit the Lighthouse
site I cited to get a clearer perspective on this.  Veterans whose eyes have
been sandblasted by IED explosions would not be able to use 1600 by 1200.  I
am not able to see much beyond 600 by 800 and even a 21" monitor isn't all
that helpful.  Let's agree that your particular subset(!) of visual
impairment (nearsightedness) appears to be more amenable to solution with a
huge monitor than many other visually impaired people would find.

> > The 24" monitor, as you probably know,
> > is not something that's very common,
> > either...
>
> I'm probably going to ditch it in favor of
> a wider screen soon.  That or I might
> tote it down to Brazil to use it when
> we're there.

I'm happy for you.  If I thought 24" screens were within the financial reach
of most blind users I know personally I perhaps wouldn't rail on PDF.  But
large screens don't solve the screen reader issues like "reading order" that
HTML documents have built-into them.   Have you ever watched a PDF draw out
on a slow screen?  Well, screen readers for the blind have to follow the
page construction flow optimized for printing and that's usually not the
same as the flow for humans.

> > Most sight-impaired people I know
> > (including me) can't *possibly* see
> > anything on a normal 17" desktop
> > monitor when running above 800 by
> > 600 (and many even struggle in that
> > mode...
>
> I have trouble *finding* a 17" monitor.
> [only kidding].
>
> > But you can hardly run any modern
> > programs at any lower resolution.
>
> Once again, PDFs solve the problem
> because they are so easily scalable.
> HTML does not do so nearly as well.

I don't understand why this point is so hard to make.  If a user has to run
at 600 by 800 because the screen controls are too small to see otherwise,
they are going to end up in pan and scan pandemonium when they encounter one
of the millions of web PDFs that began life as an 8.5 by 11" printed page.
(Google came up with 1 BILLION hits on .PDF and the first ten I looked at,
just at random, were all 8.5 by 11" page sizes.  Try it yourself.)

> > Of course you don't have to pan and
> > scan with that kind of display real estate!
>
> That's why I bought it.
>
> > People without that kind of hardware or
> > who are unable to read the screen at
> > anything higher than 800 by 600 obviously
> > do...
>
> When I use other people's PC's I have to
> pan and scan.  It's not a problem.  It's
> still much easier than HTML.

What?  Are you really saying that blind people (or even me) hitting right
arrow, left arrow, over and over again, line by line is easier than pressing
one page down key and watching text reflow automatically?  I'll believe that
when Denise Brown's real killer confesses to the crime - and it's not OJ.
That's what this thread was all about.  On a 17" monitor at 600 by 800,
PDF's often make the reader scroll left and right on EVERY line, especially
if a sight-impaired person has to magnify the type large enough to where
they can actually read it.

HTML instead reflows into the space allotted to it.  PDF's are just dumb in
comparison.  They can't even dynamically adjust the column width, something
Word's been doing for over a decade.  Forgive me, but an electronic document
display technology having no "word wrap" in the 21st century is, well,
primitive.

> > --- snip non-probative stuff ---

Ooh, more legalese and pseudo-editorial proclamations!  You're a hoot.
Obviously a simple <stuff snipped> won't quite do.  Too neutral to capture
your mood or what? Are you planning to start your own Internet reality
called show "Judge Bob Bass" or are you just trying out as second chair for
our resident Perry Mason?  (-:  "Snip non-probative stuff!"  You're going to
have me laughing all day -  Thanks!

Since somehow you seem to think you're in a courtroom following the rules of
evidence and criminal procedure and not Usenet:

"Your honor, I move we adjourn this thread as we're clearly talking past
each other now."

--
Bobby G.