[accessibility] Making PDFs produced from Latex accessible - part 3

Fri Dec 9 02:02:28 CET 2016

Here is the final part of that email discussion.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Volker Sorge <volker.sorge at gmail.com<mailto:volker.sorge at gmail.com>>
Date: 8 November 2016 10:57:24 AM AEDT
To: Boris Veytsman <borisv at lk.net<mailto:borisv at lk.net>>
Cc: Ross Moore <ross.moore at mq.edu.au<mailto:ross.moore at mq.edu.au>>, Jeffrey Bigham <jbigham at cs.cmu.edu<mailto:jbigham at cs.cmu.edu>>, Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org<mailto:karl at freefriends.org>>
Subject: Re: Making PDFs produced from Latex accessible

Hi Ross,

I understand your concerns and I fully trust your assessment on the
difficulty of the task. While I would regard myself as an expert on
Maths accessibility, my knowledge of the inner workings of TeX are
limited. But I learnt enough about the intricacies of PDF when we were
re-engineering PDF to LaTeX in our MaxTract project, to understand
that it is not as simple as adding a bit of post-processing.

However, I agree with Boris, that no-one would expect a promise for a
fully working product in an initial project. I believe it would be
enough to define what a reasonable proof of concept would be to get a
feeling for what is required in terms of research and engineering
efforts so we can get some financial estimates of how much money we
would need.
It it also timely now, what with MS Word producing reasonably
accessible material on Macs now, there will be pressure on publishers
to move away from workflows that include LaTeX. So if we do not start
now on an effort it might be too late altogether.

As for the Callas engine: I met Olaf this year at ICCHP in Linz and we
had a very good discussion on accessible Maths and PDF. I'd be happy
to reach out to him to bring him on board for an initial discussion.
I also think that it is not unreasonable to expect authors to possibly
pay for a software that validates accessible PDFs inside the TeX
workflow. Currently authors submitting to conferences like Assets,
W4A, etc also have to
pay for Acrobat XI Pro to achieve the same and still have to ensure
accessibility manually.

Anyway, I am still in the Bay area this week. Next week I'll be in
Denver at Accessing Higher Grounds which might make timing an f2f a
bit more difficult. Afterwards I'll be back in the UK.

Best,
Volker

On 5 November 2016 at 10:50, Boris Veytsman <borisv at lk.net<mailto:borisv at lk.net>> wrote:
RM> From: Ross Moore <ross.moore at mq.edu.au<mailto:ross.moore at mq.edu.au>>
RM> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:29:36 +0000

RM> What we need is a TeX engine that includes validation of the PDF
RM> output that is being produced.

I am not sure about this.  This is especially important because of the
following:

RM> The de-facto standard for checking PDF structure is Callas Software.
RM> They have written the Preflight module that Adobe itself uses. We
RM> must contact them about what it would take for licensing use of
RM> their software in a TeX engine. Recall that Olaf Drümmer was a
RM> speaker at the recent TUG meeting in Darmstadt. So it is not
RM> unreasonable that we be allowed to include linking to their code,
RM> rather than having to develop validation software from scratch.

Now suppose they allow the use of the validation engine only under the
license incompatible with TeXLive.  Does it mean that many users will
not be able to produce tagged PDF?

I would be much more comfortable if the Preflight module is optional
for TeX processing: if it is present, it is used, if not, a warning
message is issued, but the processing is done.

Anyway, could you talk to Callas people or do you want this to be made
on behalf of TUG?

RM> The only Open Source alternative is Poppler — but they have not
RM> yet embraced tagging to the extent that we will need.

Again, if we can explain Poppler devlopers what do we want, and if we
have money to offer, we might get results.

[On money and charities]

RM> Until we can actually promise something definite, I think this is
RM> both premature and risky.

Well, it is up to you.  My opinion is that if you are honest and say
that you are doing a research, and not overpromise, you are clear.

Charities spend every year billions on the research of cancer,
muscular distrophies, etc., while nobody expects an immediate cure.
This is perfectly understood by all sides.  As long as the inherent
risk of research and development is clearly communicated to the donor,
I do not think asking for money is unethical or premature.

But again, I do not want to do what makes you uncomfortable.

--
Good luck

-Boris

No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
               -- Aesop
Begin forwarded message:

From: Boris Veytsman <borisv at lk.net<mailto:borisv at lk.net>>
Date: 6 November 2016 4:50:08 AM AEDT
To: Ross Moore <ross.moore at mq.edu.au<mailto:ross.moore at mq.edu.au>>
Cc: <jbigham at cs.cmu.edu<mailto:jbigham at cs.cmu.edu>>, <volker.sorge at gmail.com<mailto:volker.sorge at gmail.com>>, <karl at freefriends.org<mailto:karl at freefriends.org>>
Subject: Re: Making PDFs produced from Latex accessible

RM> From: Ross Moore <ross.moore at mq.edu.au<mailto:ross.moore at mq.edu.au>>
RM> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:29:36 +0000