PDF Accessibility - Comparing WCAG 2.0 to PDF/UA ...

PDF Accessibility - Comparing WCAG 2.0 to PDF/UA: Understanding the Standards &

Mitigating Risk

Copyright © CommonLook 2017

Paul Rayius Accessibility Training Manager

[email protected]

Before We Get Down to Business…

vPowerPoint, Abstract, and References are available at CommonLook.com vGo to www.commonlook.com vSelect the Training Tab vScroll down the page to Conference

Presentations vEmail me and ask: [email protected]


Agenda

vWhy accessibility? vHigher Ed. - risks, lawsuits, and outcomes

vUnderstanding WCAG 2.0 and PDF/UA vVerifying accessibility / standards

compliance vSolutions for PDF accessibility


What’s the Problem!?

v Some accessibility needs are obvious/ some not v Ed. Department Statistics (2010) – 75,000

students vOften is an afterthought, too complex, or

inadequate vVirtual Student Union vThe Taxi Story


By Why Does This Matter?

vIt’s good practice vIt’s the right thing to do vAvoid legal problems vMoney talks! vChange to ADA!?


Case #1 – Two Students, NFB v. a Major State University (2012)

v Issues: vA major department used: vInaccessible web - based

application vInaccessible clickers in class vTextbooks not in Braille

vStudents claimed retaliation upon complaint


Case #1 – Two Students, NFB v. a Major State University (2012)

vOutcomes: vPay students $75,000 each vUniversity review instructional

materials vEnsure accessible procurement

(hardware and software)


Case #2 – Three Students, NFB v. 21 Law Schools and an Admission Council (2010)

v Issue: Law schools “encourage” or require use of website to apply – BUT: vApplication on Website not accessible to screen readers vScreen reader users can’t register for LSAT vOther site functions not available to students using screen

readers


Case #2 – Three Students, NFB v. 21 Law Schools and an Admission Council (2010)v Outcomes: (Settled April 25, 2011)

v Make website accessible vBy Sept. 1, 2011 vMeet WCAG 2.0 AA v Law schools that don’t comply can’t

have applications hosted there v “Beta testing” done before Sept.

deadline

v Fees: vNFB gets $300/hour for testing (up

to $25,000) vNFB monitor site (same billing rate –

up to $10,000/year) vThe council pay $320,000 in legal

fees v Wait… There’s more!


Case #2 – Three Students, NFB v. 21 Law Schools and an Admission Council (2010)

Outcomes (Continued): vCouncil train employees, document training, give to

NFB vCouncil monitor site – provide quarterly: vSummary of complaints vHow resolved (if not solved, consult with NFB)


Case #3 – Cal. Dep’t. of Fair Employment and Housing v. THAT SAME COUNCIL! (2012)

vIssues: vFail to give appropriate accommodation to LSAT test

takers v“Flagged” test scores when earned by people

needing more time


Case #3 – Cal. Dep’t. of Fair Employment and Housing v. THAT SAME COUNCIL! (2012)

v Outcome: (May 2014 – Parties reach agreement / “Propose ‘Consent Decree’”)

v Permanent injunction – ensure LSAT continues to be accessible

v No Flagging test scores

v Pay:

v$55,000 to DOJ

v$1,000,000 attorney’s fees to DFEH / Legal Aid Society

v$7,675,000 in damages


To Summarize:

v Big Offenders - Inaccessible:

vWebsites / web - based applications

vClassroom materials (especially clickers)

vTextbooks

vNOT providing accommodations

v Popular Outcomes:

vPay money

vFix content (including “going back”)

vTrain Staff

vMonitor / test

vPlan / implement for future (including procurement)


Procurement

vChange in attitude: Companies must give access to get access! vApple vGoogle vBlackboard


Where To Begin? You Gotta Know the Standards

v508 vWCAG 2.0 vPDF/UA


WCAG

v Created by W3C / WCAG WG – for WEB content

v Guidelines – increased accessibility for all v Technical Standard – not an intro! v Four Principles (POUR) v 12 Guidelines with testable success criteria

(A to AAA levels) v CAN be applied to PDF


PDF/UA

vISO 14289 vSpecific to PDF v(Very high)

technical standard

vThree sections: vPDF files vPDF reader

software vHow AT reads

PDF


Similarities

vBoth are: vTechnical standards vInternationally used

vCompliment each other without conflict


Differences

vWCAG is for WEB vWCAG is more broad in scope vThere are some instances where “a 1:1 mapping

doesn’t exist”


Differences – Be More Specific…

vFor “video - only” content: vWCAG - provide an alternative or audio track that

provides “equivalent” info

vPDF/UA – tag media with alternative description (how

much info?) (Embedded video in PDF isn’t common)

vXFA-PDF is allowed in WCAG (not PDF/UA)


Differences on the PDF/UA Side

vPDF specific vDoesn’t address: vGeneral accessibility principles vDesign, visual appearance, etc., except tagging vA/V content or video captions


Differences on the PDF/UA Side

vJavaScript – must be accessible/ not a J.S. standard vRequirements for consistent / reliable presentation –

print, electronic, or A.T. vFonts must be embedded – Author intent / legible vArticle thread – reading order – not in WCAG vHeading levels!


Which to Choose?

According to the AIIM (Assoc. for Information and Image Management):

In situations “such as in PDF, it is generally appropriate to consult the

accessibility standard (if any) developed specifically for that technology.”

(That would be PDF/UA)

What about Section 508/ ADA?!


Multi-Phase Document Accessibility Plan


v Review corporate goals and business environment, requirements

v Select standard(s) to test for compliance

v Audit/test digital assets against standard(s) for compliance

v Set priorities for document remediation

v Develop document accessibility policy for future

v Leverage Phase 1 data

v How document accessibility and compliance is attained

v Prepare project plan – with prioritized assets for remediation

v Decide internal,outsourced, or hybrid remediation approach

v Commence communication and training of team

v Execute a pilot program

v Integrate accessibility into design, development, and testing process

v Prepare best practice document accessibility checklists and processes

v Scale up document accessibility program

v Raise exposure and awareness through communications

v Increase capacity through training

v Document and provide accessibility guidance to other departments, business units, and Lines of Business

v Monitor for compliance with accessibility laws and regulations

v Test and report on PDF holdings: # of PDFs and % in compliance

v Reports will guide document creation and future remediation projects

1

Review & Assess

2

Strategy & Plan

3

Implement

4

Expand Program

5

Monitor & Report

Document Accessibility Plan Key Steps


v Review corporate goals and business environment, requirements

v Select standard(s) to test for compliance

v Audit/test documents against standard(s)

v Set priorities for document remediation

v Develop document accessibility policy for future

v Leverage Phase 1 data

v How document accessibility and compliance is attained

v Prepare project plan – with prioritized assets for remediation

v Decide internal,outsourced, or hybrid remediation approach

v Commence communication and training of team

v Execute a pilot program to perform remediation on target documents

v Integrate accessibility into design, development, and testing process

v Prepare best practice document accessibility checklists and processes

v Scale up document accessibility program

v Raise exposure and awareness through communications

v Increase capacity through training

v Document and provide accessibility guidance to other departments, business units, and Lines of Business

v Monitor for compliance with accessibility laws and regulations

v Test and report on PDF holdings: # of PDFs and % in compliance

v Reports will guide document creation and future remediation projects

1

Review & Assess

2

Strategy & Plan

3

Implement

4

Expand Program

5

Monitor & Report

Phase 1: Review and Assess Audit and Test Documents Against Standard(s) for Compliance

v Do it yourself (software) OR Use a service? v Outsource it:

v To discover documents, and then test them, if their locations are unknown,

v To assess large volumes of documents even if number and location of PDFs are known, and/or

v Time, expertise, knowledge of software/ standards is lacking.

v Do it yourself if: v Document holdings are known,

v Ample time exists,

v Standards can be interpreted, and

v You can use the tools: (Caution! There may be a learning curve!)

v Adobe Acrobat,

v PAC - 2, and/or

v CommonLook PDF GlobalAccess (or CommonLook Validator).


Adobe Acrobat (as a Checker)

v Pros: vIncluded in Acrobat Pro vGenerates a report

v Cons: vDoesn’t guarantee standards compliance vCan give “false positives/ negatives”


PAC-2

vPros: vFree vTests against PDF/UA vView tagging, role

mapping vScreen reader preview!

vCons: vAdditional download (need

IT/ permission?) vDoesn’t show artifacts vCan’t save report vNo functionality to fix

issues


CommonLook Validator

v Pros:

v Free

v Tests with multiple standards

v Custom Configure Checkpoints

v Generates a report

v Edit verification status

v Easily view tagged/ untagged content, tag properties, metadata, and more

v Cons:

v Additional download (need IT/ permission?)

v Limited functionality to fix issues (Acrobat plug - in)

vWe’ll come back to CommonLook PDF


v Advantages v Software* enables productivity & effectiveness v Builds internal capacity & awareness v Long term approach to maintain compliance v Combines with outsourcing as required

v Disadvantagesv Staff time and effort v Limited staff knowledge and experience v Learning curve for existing staff & new hires

v Advantages v Easier to implement, scale & support

v Increased speed & agility

v Cost - effectiveness (with certain vendors)

v Vendor guarantee can reduce risk

v Disadvantages v Higher costs in some project scenarios

v Time required to contract with vendor

v Wide range of vendor service accuracy & quality levels


Phase 2: Strategy & PlanDetermine Remediation Approach: In-house or Outsourced

* Industry software options v Adobe Acrobat Professional v CommonLook PDF GlobalAccess

Internal Project Outsourced Remediation

Adobe Acrobat (as a Remediation Tool)

v Pros: vIncluded in Acrobat Pro vGenerates a report vAble to fix PDF in Acrobat

v Cons: vDoesn’t guarantee standards compliance vCan give “false positives/ negatives” vSome error documentation is incomplete/ incorrect


CommonLook PDF (as a Remediation Tool)

v Pros: vTests against multiple standards – HHS, WCAG, PDF/UA vCustom Configure Checkpoints vGenerates a report vEasily view tagged/ untagged content, tag properties, metadata, role mapping, and

more vIncludes powerful tools to increase speed and accuracy in remediation and testing

v Cons: v Not free v Additional download (need IT/ permission?)


Phase 3: Implementation Integrate accessibility into Document Development and Testing Process

v Invest in education for designers, developers, authors: accessibility concepts, standards, creating documents

v Internal processes guide content creation and dissemination

v Document accessibility is applied at multiple stages v Creation stage: using accessibility tools and features

v Use integrated accessibility tools, if appl. to verify and correct

v Select tools for authoring software (e.g. InDesign, Word, … etc )

v Review process: prior to disseminating content (e.g., to web)

v Finalizing end product: at last review - PDF to be posted

v Higher costs incurred if accessibility is added late in development cycle (e.g., post-authoring stage)


Document Accessibility Basics ü Reading order & formatting

ü Using color, italics, symbols

ü Impact of contrast

ü Headings & styles, alternate text for images, data tables

Accessibility Tools

ü Microsoft Word & PowerPoint built in accessibility checkers

ü Programs & plugins (e.g., MadeToTag for InDesign, CommonLook Office for Word and PowerPoint)

Phase 4: Expand the Program Audit and Test Documents Against Standard(s) for Compliance

v Reminders for this phase: v Scale up document accessibility program v Raise exposure and awareness through communications v Increase capacity through training v Document and provide accessibility guidance to other

departments, business units, and Lines of Business


v Goal: assess compliance status; monitor progress v Confirm PDFs are remedied, new PDFs are accessible

v Assist in cases of litigation

v Goal: prioritize documents; manage remediation project v Track and test new documents to organize compliance efforts

v Create reports to guide document creation

v Tools and services available for monitoring and generating reports to be shared with the team v Many companies test and monitor web HTML content

v CommonLook Clarity is designed specifically for PDF

v Remember – automation is not 100%


Phase 5: Monitor & Report Assess and Monitor for Compliance with Accessibility Laws

Domain Compliance Report from CommonLook Clarity

Starting on the Path to Document Compliance? It’s time to take action …


After verification, many organizations use outsourced remediation services to fix documents while getting up to speed on accessibility standards and practices.

If there is ample time and resources, in - house capacity is built through investments in software and staff training.

Audit/test documents against standards

Pilot project with remediation partner

Expand project scope & document volume

Outsource Remediation

Acquire testing & remediation software

Build Internal Capacity

Train & expand compliance team

Monitor & Report

1. Create a cross - functional team, with a mandate to act proactively

2. Gain executive support early in the program

3. Build relationships among key stakeholders including legal, regulatory, compliance, IT, communications and others

4. Invest in staff, software tools, and training to build internal capacity

5. Choose an outsourcing partner for remediation services, to handle overflow workload, and complex projects

6. Embed accessibility practices as corporate values, through communications and training


Tips for Document Accessibility Success Organizational Considerations

Tips for Document Accessibility Success Prepared for today. Ready for the Future.

1. Maintain a document inventory according to priority, importance to customers, relevance to compliance standards etc …

2. Select a partner with proven remediation process and practices, and the ability to guarantee results

3. Tackle low hanging fruit: fix document issues with highest impact on customers, and other stakeholders

4. With a large remediation project, try to show quick wins

5. Design with accessibility in mind – cuts the time and cost involved required for future remediation

6. To stay compliant, do accessibility checks at key milestones


Questions?


Thanks For Listening!

“Because when it comes to document accessibility, we think everyone should be

on the same page.”

v Find presentation resources on the commonlook.com website (on the Training page)

v Visit us at Booth 539 v Email: [email protected]


Thanks, Freepik.com, for the slide graphics!

mailto:[email protected]

PDF Accessibility - Comparing WCAG 2.0 to PDF/UA ...

Documents

Transcript of PDF Accessibility - Comparing WCAG 2.0 to PDF/UA ...