Opothleyahola

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disability PDF/UA is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). Accessibility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Accessibility, a group of editors promoting better access for disabled or otherwise disadvantaged users. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page.AccessibilityWikipedia:WikiProject AccessibilityTemplate:WikiProject AccessibilityAccessibility articles

I think the "multiple issues" warning should be removed from this page. How can this warning, added in May, 2013, to a much older version of the page, be removed? Duff Johnson (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits of the format itself, there is a significant practical problem with PDF/UA - it currently has very limited support from the vendors of PDF 'viewers', readers and such. Outside of MS Windows, support for PDF/UA in readers and viewers is pretty much non-existent. Have you ever got Apple's VoiceOver to browse a PDF/UA properly? Have you ever got an Android device to do so? Pick any other OS. Pick any PDF viewer. Does it support PDF/UA? The answer today, in most cases, is no.

A related problem: Most web browsers do a reasonable job of showing PDF content, but none of them (at time of writing) expose the PDF/UA semantic tags to assistive technology such as screen readers. This raises completely unreasonable expectations about how 'accessible' PDF/UA files actually are. Now, the PDF/UA apologists will tell you that the format is not intended for viewing in the browser, but can we really expect the end user (or the average project manager) to grasp that even though the browser can display PDF, it wont be accessible? I've even had PDF/UA files rejected by an accessibility audit because JAWS couldn't 'see' the tags in Chrome. The auditors were accessibility professionals, supposedly experts in the field. I can only assume that we could all benefit from being a bit more open about these practical shortcomings of PDF/UA, rather than pretending it's all rainbows and unicorns.

For a nominally 'portable' and 'accessible' format, PDF/UA makes an utterly dismal performance in both areas. Yes, I know it's neither the fault of ISO, or Adobe, but these are serious real world shortcomings, poorly documented, or unmentioned. I will be much happier than most when the situation improves, but perhaps these important shortcomings could be mentioned here, at least until the situation improves. How else would people be made aware of the problem? It came as a surprise to our a11y auditors! Certainly none of the vendors seem at all interested in making these facts more widely known in their docs. Perhaps wikipedia is an appropriate place for a gentle caveat of this nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.193.36 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever edited a wikipedia page before, but the mention of WCAG 2.0 on this article is out of date. If it was changed to WCAG without mentioning the version, the sentences that mention WCAG would stay current. 173.56.23.186 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]