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

["Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms>]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:wP2dnfTviMe4BZbbnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
> news:MP6dnYIPq7EczZbbnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Now you see another problem that
>> > severely sight-impaired folks have with
>> > PDFs...
>>
>> What you've done here is to turn a discussion
>> -- a meta thread, actually --
>
> Are you complaining about a thread excursion
> you readily joined of your own free will?  Really?
>  That's odd.

No.  You broke my statement to hide what
I was saying.  I'll restore it here:
"What you've done here is to turn a discussion
-- a meta thread, actually -- about the relative
merits of PDF and HTML into a discussion of
what might be better suited to a tiny subset of
the population."

> --- snip ---

> This "what I've done here" phrasing sounds
> as if you're about to initiate prosecution against
> me "doing something" to Usenet when all that
> happened was the normal thread drift that often
> occurs....

No Bobby,  I was showing the failed logic of
using an extreme case (blind readers) which affects
a small minority to try to prove something is bad
for the general population.  I think you knew that
before you snipped the rest of my statement to
launch into an argument about what was not said.

> I did at least have the decency to rename
> the thread...

Good, but that has nothing to do with what I was
saying.  Let's get back on subject.

>> about the relative merits of PDF and HTML into a discussion of
>> what might be better suited to a tiny subset of  the population.
>
> Tiny subset????...

Yes.  The vast majority of people online can see.

> --- snip hyperbole ---

> Please take this *very* easy two question multiple choice test:
>
> The percent of Americans ages 65 and older are visually impaired or blind...

That's not sufficient data.  First you have to know what percentage of said population (blind, elderly) is actually online.  Also,
for many visually impaired folks PDF works fine.

> The number of US veterans that have what are
> considered serious vision impairments is:

The VA estimates there are 160,000 legally blind vets.
That represents a tiny fraction of the US population.

>> This is comparable to saying that because
>> blind people cannot drive cars, everyone
>> should walk.
>
> Say what?!!!  I'm saying that if people are
> going to adapt an information transfer
> technology like PDF's, perhaps they could
> adapt one that's both non-proprietary and
> equally useful to the blind and sighted alike...

Apparently you are unaware (as I was until
today) that Adobe makes a plug-in to view
PDFs on a Braille display.  Here's a URL.
http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html

> Maybe all it takes is an add-on program
> for Adobe that converts PDF's into
> *readable* HTML for webmasters short
> on time for that task...

It seems they're way ahead of us on that.
According to Adobe, "The Adobe® Acrobat®
family ? Acrobat 8 Professional, Acrobat 8
Standard, and Acrobat Elements software ?
includes powerful publishing tools that enable
authors to create and optimize accessible
Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF)
files from almost any source document."

> That's about three thousand light years
> from your stunningly simplistic assessment
> that I'm somehow saying "don't drive
> because blind people can't."

Ignoring the tone of that comment, my
assessment holds.  It is not logical to
deem a technology useless or unacceptible
for the masses because a small subset
cannot use it.  However, Adobe 8 Pro seems
to make that whole issue moot.

>> No slight against vision impaired folks is
>> intended here.
>
> Maybe not intended but labeling the sight
> impaired a "tiny subset" betrays a basic
> lack of understanding of dimensions of the
> problem...

No, it does not.  The blind are indeed a tiny
subset compared to the universe of people
online.

> If you were aware of the numbers...

I'm aware of the numbers and the extent
of the problem.  However, you're still
dwelling on this as though it supports
your disdain for PDF.  It doesn't.

> Go kiss your ($2500?) 24" Sony monitor
> and thank God he happened to make you
> able to afford it...

I work hard to earn enough to buy what I
need so that I can do my job more effectively.
If that bothers you it's your problem.

> and not even far-sighted or astigmatic or
> acuity-challenged so that not even the
> biggest monitor in the world would help you.

I'm also astigmatic.  Life has its challenges.
Unfortunately, vision problems are small
compared to other things I'm dealing with.
The large monitor doesn't help with that.

> What am I saying and you are clearly not
> getting is why *not* adopt a technology
> that serves both communities and is
> NON-proprietary?

You're asking two questions at once.  I'll
answer them separately.  First, PDF is
entirely capable of serving the vision
impaired community if authors choose to
implement the current standard.  Software
for the purpose is readily available.  I used
to create lots of PDF docs for my site.  Of
late I haven't needed to but I can assure
you that when I do I'll first buy the current
software so that my pages are accessible.
I also try to keep my web content accessible
(it's not only good citizenship; it's good
business practice).

As to the format being proprietary, I see no
problem there.  Acrobat readers have been
free from the word go and should continue
as such.  It isn't in Adobe's interest to
change that and if they do a dozen other
developers will write software to compete.
PDF authoring tools are reasonable in
cost and well integrated into content
development suites.  PDF has become the
defacto standard for online technical docs,
ensuring continued product development
with accessibility included (ADA has a
significant say in that).

> Vista is actually laying much of the
> groundwork for such a technology...

That's outside my field of interest at present.

> ...and the Iraq war has blinded many
> more since then...

That figures.  It was started by a blind
US president leading an impaired Congress.
We're going to spend the next 30-50 years
undoing the damage those idiots have
wraught.

> I would argue that while the net is a
> luxury to the sighted in many ways, it
> has become a necessity and a lifeline
> to the sight impaired.  That should
> give at least equal weight, and perhaps
> more, about their concerns with PDFs.

You say "their" concerns as though
all vision impaired persons shared your
opinion. That has not been demonstrated.

> Especially if an open standards alternative
> to PDF that accounts for sight impairment
> can be found...

Nothing of the kind is to be "found" until
someone developes it.  If you know how,
go forth and do so.  If not, it seems unfair
for you to rail at folks who are doing
something to help.

> Adobe is diligently adding hooks for screen
> readers and other assistive devices.

Looks like they have them already.

"Acrobat 8 products integrate with a broad
range of assistive technologies, including:
# Windows based MSAA-compliant screen readers
# Screen magnification software
# OCR/scanning software
# Voice recognition software"
http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/accessibility/acrobat.html

> I suspect part of that is they were at
> risk for being ineligible for Federal use
> if they didn't  Only time will tell if their
> modifications will suffice.

More likely they're simply trying to comly with
the law.  That, too, is good business sense.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>