Government gives thumbs down to PDF format

By John Hilvert on Dec 1, 2010 10:39 AM
Filed under Software

Adobe's document format lacks accessibility, says AGIMO.

The central IT office of Australia's Federal Government has requested that agencies consider the use of alternative file formats to Adobe's PDF.

The advice follows a study which found that while accessibility of the Portable Document Format (PDF) has improved over time and remains a popular format for many organisations, it was less accessible to visually-impaired users.

Published by the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO), "The Australian Government's study into the Accessibility of the Portable Document Format for people with a disability," concluded that if PDF was used, accessible alternative file formats should be made available.

While the use of PDF files was prolific and preferred over other formats, the study also found that:

80 percent of respondents do not complement the use of PDF files without alternate formats;
PDF files are used by a wide variety of organisations but those are blind or have low vision experience many problems with multi-column designs;
Screen readers are unable to interact with a document saved as an image-only PDF file because images are not accessible to people who are blind.
Employing workaround methods to access inaccessible PDF files results in a degraded experience when compared to accessing equivalent documents in other formats.

27 comments in this discussion

"@John, I've never suggested that AGIMO mandated proprietary software... only that it has achieved so little in terms of the shift to open source. I have read the policy links you provided and ..."

By Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)

Tags

pdf, adobe, agimo, canberra, accessibility

AGIMO eyes mobile-friendly website strategy

IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers

Federal Govt eyes common G-Cloud

Government websites fail mobile access tests

Breaking Stories

Hackett steps down from Internode

ACCC approves Optus NBN deal

Australia shares $2bn Square Kilometre Array

RIM to cut 2000 jobs

NSW retains right to veto data centre co-tenants

Comments: 27

cootified Dec 1, 2010 1:15 PM	You can see the skill shortage in government agencies very clearly here. PDF is a document format, which means it will store what ever is on the document. It's not the format's fault if blind people cannot read the documents sent to them, it's the fault of the document creator - who should have included accessibility options before publishing the document.
Notomys Dec 1, 2010 1:27 PM	AGIMO should be embarrassed by this, waste of tax payers money, even Wikipedia can offer insight which discounts the study. "Originally a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008. PDF files can be created specifically to be accessible for disabled people. Current PDF file formats can include tags (XML), text equivalents, captions, audio descriptions, et cetera. Some software can automatically produce tagged PDFs, however this feature is not always enabled by default. Leading screen readers, including JAWS, Window-Eyes, Hal, and Kurzweil 1000 and 3000 can read tagged PDFs; current versions of the Acrobat and Acrobat Reader programs can also read PDFs aloud. " AGIMO appears to be technology-impaired and ignorant.
Sams Dec 1, 2010 2:13 PM	It's worth looking at the 'key findings' section of the main report and skimming the supplementary reports (which is all about the screen readers tested) before jumping to conclusions. After having a look, my feeling is this is more about providing documents in the form of accessible web pages rather than PDFs where possible, or at least providing alternative formats. A small sample: "To address the need for greater clarity on the issue, Vision Australia was commissioned by the Australian Government to undertake this study (the Study). It included a series of user consultations to understand the situational context in using PDF files, followed by technical evaluations assessing the functionality of the most commonly used assistive technologies when interacting with PDF files. The outcome of the consultation and results of the technical evaluations were then tested by people with a disability employing various adaptive strategies to gain an understanding of their experience when interacting with a selection of PDF documents."
John Sheridan Dec 1, 2010 2:38 PM	Hi John I am the First Assistant Secretary at AGIMO responsible for this work. I'd strongly encourage your readers to check out both the report to which you have linked and our blog post on this matter (http://bit.ly/e4Pll7). The title of the post "Good design is the key to accessibility" makes exactly the point that 'cootified' is making above. To quote from the Executive Summary of the Report: "Overall, the Study found that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the development of the Portable Document Format and improvements in assistive technologies have advanced enough for PDF files to be considered accessible for people with a disability, particularly for those who are blind or have low vision. Importantly, the Study also highlighted that the issues contributing to the inaccessibility of PDF files, when used with assistive technologies, are not in general directly attributable to the Portable Document Format itself. The issues that result in an inaccessible PDF file are, in order of impact: the design of the PDF file by the document author to incorporate the correct presentation, structure, tags and elements that maximise accessibility; the technical ability of the assistive technology to interact with the PDF file (via the relevant PDF Reader); and the skill of the user and their familiarity with using their assistive technology to interact with a PDF file." I'd also make it clear, as 'Sams' notes, that we engaged Vision Australia to do this study. They have some considerable experience in this area. We'd welcome discussion on the blog about this matter. Regards John
BrettWinterford Dec 1, 2010 3:31 PM	Thanks for your comments, John and others.
Sams Dec 1, 2010 3:33 PM	OMG, government blogs with real comments ... and using WordPress even. The times are a changin'
RaTTyRaTT Dec 1, 2010 3:44 PM	Cute, so with all your vaunted opinions (aka: directives) to agencies to change from PDF, what format are you advising (aka: telling) the agencies to move to? I mean AGIMO seems to do more harm than good of late, so I'm interested in knowing whether this is just one more stupid requirement by AGIMO to agencies, to leave them flying in the wind. After all, you certainly are happy to sling off at something like PDF, but where's your alternative? Typical AGIMO - tell them not to do something, and give no real recourse to change. If you do offer a change, it's so vague that there's not much choice and not much opportunity to rebut it either.
RB Dec 1, 2010 4:10 PM	To what extent it this problem about Acrobat Reader rather that the document format? I was amazed to install Acrobat X (10) and find that it still does not work with 64-bit applications. I did notice the new colour in the toolbar ... that is so much more important that software that actually works.
Ace Dec 1, 2010 4:22 PM	Trouble is @RaTTyRaTT, it's you who come off looking a bit silly. The very first line on the page hosting the report is 'Good document design is the key to accessibility', the key findings include potential remedies, there are bits about workarounds and quite a few tips for creators of PDF documents to make them more accessible. Might be worth reading the report. It is clear that PDF format has become a major method of distributing information, govt or not. As such, it is worth ensuring that authors are using it correctly.
kfix Dec 1, 2010 4:33 PM	Beat me to it Ace. I did have to actually read the report for a few minutes to get that information though, so y'know that's a lot of work compared to a quick spot of slinging off...
John Sheridan Dec 1, 2010 4:58 PM	Me again - AGIMO's recommendations for web publishing may be found here: http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/ We publish in PDF, RTF, HTML and sometimes e-pub. The site containing the report has both a PDF and an HTML version. Regards John
redkcir Dec 1, 2010 7:39 PM	A: Adobe isn't the only game in town. I use different free PDF programs to work on my PDF files (publish. annotate, etc)that are faster and easier to use than Adobe. No reason not to use the format because you have a problem with the company. B: I don't know about you, but every program I use including Adobe has this plus sign on it. Activate it and you can blow it up to any size you want. If a person can't read it when a single letter fills the screen, you can't blame the format. And last point, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but if you are blind, no text format is going to work for you.
RaTTyRaTT Dec 2, 2010 12:15 AM	Indeed, to rebut you Ace/kfix, while I will apologize for actually not doing more of a overview scan, I note from the finding of the document that excluding many aspects of 3rd party software interpreting (aka: Braille readers, etc) allowing PDF import, there is little there that cannot equally apply to other document types such as Office (all flavours, including open source) and RTF, HTML as it comes all down to the author of the document, the intent of the document and the ability of the end user to be able to wield the document (ie: using magifying options, or text to speech options) which from experience has interesting connectivity across all those different apps. (some work well, some don't.) I fail to see why PDF is singled out as the most 'do not use' app of them all. In fact, if a author is properly skilled/versed in the software (Acrobat) then they are able to create documents that can be disability accessible. In the end, however the actual statistics are quite interesting in that the article states "33% of assistive technology products in Australia (JAWS, MAGic and ZoomText) are used by 89% of the assistive tech population" and it then states "provides sufficient technical capability to interact with a PDF file" It seems the whole of Govt. is being requested to provide for the remaining 11% of Assistive Tech people, in Australia. hmmm - numbers are a nasty thing, and to be honest... "sigh" if the remaining products used by that 11% are not compatible (yes, mentioned) then maybe the vendors should be leaned on gently to change that. Not require/request the whole of Government conform to a 11% of Assistive Tech people. (note this is on page 5 I believe.) Now, in terms of the actual stats for Assistive Tech people, how many are we talking about here??? 100k? 200k, or maybe 20k, 30k??? Honestly, I think it's easier to practically (and cheaper possibly) buy all the 11% licenses for JAWS or MAGic or ZoomText than require whole of government to conform. Of course, we could ask Adobe to assist in fixing this as well - but that may 'irritate/make noncompliant' the 89% of products that 'do' work. So, what's silly about this? I mean that seriously - I may have seemed silly for being kneejerk a bit (and as mentioned, apologies) but it is still seeming more off the cuff kneejerk from AGIMO perspective than actual a realistic requirement. Please someone quote some numbers - I may have missed that in the reading of this text (and the supplement as well.) Cheers
RaTTyRaTT Dec 2, 2010 12:23 AM	@Redkcir: I think the picky point here is the PDF format, not Adobe being singled out. PDF itself is quite versatile - as some have already pointed out. Needless, yes there are many options for PDF - but what options are there to 'replace' PDF... as mentioned: HTML, RTF and e-pub are tossed out by Mr. Sheridan... nice to know - but I think they still have some of their own sticky points. Interesting the actual conclusions of the report do not conform to the requirement by AGIMO, their instructions being: "accessible alternative file formats should be made available" to phrase above (w/thanks to ITNews.) This is unusual in that, if that is the case, then producers of documents (PDF or otherwise) must create multiple types of documents, increasing storage and otherwise creating a bigger headache for delivering documentation across the whole of Govt. Yikes anyone? I have seen 500+ page reports in PDF that are handled fine by Reader and the like, if they are in Word or RTF - they will look WAAAAAY different, and a heck of a lot bigger. Sorry, but that may be shooting wide - but that's a lot of redundant storage there...
RaTTyRaTT Dec 2, 2010 12:25 AM	@Ace: sorry, forgot to mention - agree completely on the fact that a good design in the document will assist strongly in the case, but does that mitigate enough the requirement to retain PDF or still may require (through no fault of the author) a change of document format, due to the content that they have to work with??? Just a 10c question that came to mind.
JoATMoN Dec 2, 2010 7:14 AM	You know...there's plenty of online training available for creating accessible PDF's at Adobe! http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/ And here is the documentation for PDF best practices: http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/best_practices.html There are different types of PDF's available. PDF image (inaccessible), searchable PDF (somewhat accessible), and a tagged PDF (accessible). A majority of PDF's created are either image or searchable (images may not be read out loud, tables not labeled, inaccessible graphs or equations, just to list a few of the problems) which can have a lot of problems when used by a screen reader. Yes, Adobe has OCR built into their program, but it's horrendous and is more troublesome to use than a OCR program! Also, moving to a different format will not help ease the problems with accessibility, it will just show the inaccessibility of other programs. You will still have to label images, tables, and other items that can't be read aloud by screen readers. Not to mention make sure that it's compatible with different operating systems. Imagine having all PDF's available as tagged PDF's. Searching for content within an online PDF would be MUCH easier!
Ace Dec 2, 2010 12:45 PM	@RattyRatt, I think it is OK to target PDF in this instance, as it does seem to have become the defacto standard for dissemination of documentation from web sites, or via email. HTML has been targeted in that past, and now many developers and government agencies are aware of requirements for accessibility. You will see govt accessibility guidelines for web sites, but limited information about Word or PDF distributed content. For example, the SA Govt guidelines about PDF say "PDF files are extremely useful for publishing content, however PDF files have accessibility issues. Alternative versions should be made available eg text, html.". This is not very helpful.
Tinrib Dec 2, 2010 1:45 PM	PDF exploits are one of the most common methods of attacking a system. I doubt the Australia government is (knowingly) inserting malicious code into their PDFs. Until Adobe prove the format to be secure enough our government should steer clear of it and at least provide an alternative so we can choose.
Hector Dec 2, 2010 5:30 PM	The truth of the matter is that so many people are unaware that HAARP can be used as a weapon. It is an ionospheric heater! Not a single person can deny or debunk this fact. Whenever you start manipulating electrons, you get the fourth state of matter... http://musclexedgereview.com
umbria Dec 2, 2010 6:37 PM	@RattyRatt: "I fail to see why PDF is singled out as the most 'do not use' app of them all" Well, probably because most documents these days are exported to PDF with no thought except consistent printing, important though that is. Since PDF is the only game in town for many, it seems that AGIMO is doing what we pay them in engaging Vision Australia to improve the way Adobe gets used.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Dec 9, 2010 5:13 PM	I'd love to see AGIMO push Govt Depts to not "lock-up" their data in secured PDFs, when the information contained therein is stuff they are seeking to distribute to the public! It amazes me that Depts go to such lengths to not allow 'open' PDFs, where people can grab the text they want, and other data elements etc. Secondly, pleeease let's not pretend that PDF is open standard, but only access issue remains... As most Govt Depts had standardised on PDF long before it was an ISO standard. The far-bigger area of concern is that Govt Depts are so wed to entirely proprietary formats, where ISO formats are available. I think AGIMO should stipulate that within two years it will be unacceptable for depts to put out documents in MS WORD format, versus Open Office... or to ask for Resumes, Tenders & Project Plans to be submitted in WORD. And AGIMO should have prevented NSW DET taking $300 Federal laptops for students and turning them into $1300 expense items. Putting the NSW govt into the loop is a sure-fire way to stuff up any project. Only two industries refer to "users" - the illegal drug business and the software business. With each, the first use is free, but you then pay by being shackled for the rest of your life. The student laptops should be Linux (say Ubuntu) with lots of FOSS (free and open software) and OpenOffice, so national curriculum could become available on consistent open platform. The NSW DET resoponse that going MS proprietary cost them very little, is beside the point, if you see it as locking in the next generation of Australians to paying $10b a year in overseas royalties for IP rights, for which free and unencumbered versions existed. Microsoft only gives it away for kids BECAUSE they know that if students are taught on open software, they will never go back to being fully-locked-in! Perhaps AGIMO needs to invite government computing experts from overseas countries which have made significant progress towards open source, to lecture departments (including their own) on how it is done. I can see no greater raison d'etre for AGIMO than open standards and open source, but I suspect they are too ineffectual for the job... so like to concentrate on (relatively) minor issues like access for the blind.
peterhau Dec 10, 2010 1:02 PM	@RaTTyRaTT - considering that the dissemination of the documents that come out of most of the government departments are in several formats, not just PDF, the need for accessibility for every reader of the document must be considered. it is pretty simple for people to convert a word document or html file into a pdf, without sizing, consistent formatting and making sure that the header and footer doesn't include the url from a classified intranet site. pdf documents are not as secure as is claimed, the text can represent badly, especially if it is a font that isn't recognised on the mac, win or linux box - it defaults to a hard to read substitute. if it is a word doc, you can change the size without losing formats. if it is an html file, same thing. I think that you are confusing AGIMO with NOIE, they aren't the same agency, there have been changes over the years and the new agency has made a standardisation call, which may or may not be taken up. This is a positive step for the fed govt, and may lead to open source standards being adopted for all files - which will eliminate which branded word processor you will need to view it.
peterhau Dec 10, 2010 1:05 PM	just for the record, I don't agree with a lot of things that AGIMO do, I just feel that locking into Adobe is prohibitive for other technologies and companies. the whole idea for government released documents is free access for all, if you need to use one brand over another you are limiting who can and can't read them.
John Sheridan Dec 10, 2010 3:55 PM	@Grame AGIMO does not have any jurisdiction over the states or territories.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Dec 10, 2010 5:03 PM	@Sec John, having sat on various Federal government committees, I am fully aware of the limitations of our federation. Most of my points were about Federal departments. My one point re a state acting badly was in regards to NSW DET taking FEDERAL PCs and proprietising them with heavily-restrictive licences from MS, Adobe etc. The FEDERAL government should have not only supplied the PCs, but should have looked at what was being done in advanced 'software import' countries (ie other than USA) to rid the next generation from the chains of proprietary software, where good open source is available. And the Feds could have developed the simple thumb drive which (if inserted) could have 'reset' any school laptop to an 'fresh install' without any consideration of providing serial numbers, etc etc. If the Feds had simply wanted to provide a laptop with a workable OS, good office suite, good graphics editing, some video editing etc, an open solution like Ubuntu is preferable to the 'first-use-free' software from MS, Adobe etc, where the kids after school will be 'hooked' into paying for MS Office, Adobe Photoshop etc, whereas they could have become trained in truly free and open software. And I know public servants love a good 'hand washing', but the Feds were paying for all those poor decisions, and under COAG and as payer, a better solution was possible. The Commonwealth needs to come out with some real policy statements. A good start would be to advise state-based Education Depts that any Federal funding of laptops for kids beyond 2013 will need to be based on open operating systems and open software generally, with explanation of difference between 'open' and 'free'. A good second policy would be on basic workstation configuration to being open within Govt depts, and for use of Open Office over proprietary office suites, for a roll-out over say three years. That way, it would be clear that for basic workstations, we would start migrating depts out of the dark ages of being entirely locked-in by vendors. Just sending that message out to the Depts and hence to the marketplace would be a good start. Even ignoring the states, Australia is a true laggard in terms of migrating to open source... for no good reason than lethargy. And it seems that AGIMO is part of the problem, not part of the solution. AGIMO seems to have bought the MS argument (and re-preach it) that as departments are so stuck in proprietary software, there is no immediate savings in changing to open systems. Everyone acknowledges that the savings come AFTER one has changed for a few years, not in the first year. There will always be legacy systems that need fully-proprietary platforms for some years to come. But most departments should have to report, with AGIMO annoncing each year, what percentage of workstations have been switched to open software. It is the same as rating departments for discrimination, energy efficiency etc... only by shaming bureaucracies can one achieve positive change. Let's compare ourselves to Brazil and others on a year-by-year basis, to see how we should rate AGIMO as an agent for change.
John Sheridan Dec 10, 2010 11:35 PM	@Graeme AGIMO does not mandate the use of Microsoft software. This is our open source software resource page http://www2.finance.gov.au/e-government/infrastructure/open-source-software.html We are currently updating the policy.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Dec 15, 2010 7:28 PM	@John, I've never suggested that AGIMO mandated proprietary software... only that it has achieved so little in terms of the shift to open source. I have read the policy links you provided and 'talk' is appropriate (though quite neutral in terms of seeking any change). I think it would be more useful to report what percentage of workstations (say) were now non-proprietary OS or non-proprietary office suite (say) compared to countries which have made significant achievements in this area. Indeed, I think it would be useful if AGIMO reported on total licence fees paid by department/agency, as that is another good measure to use. And for those who complain, one could show totals for both support and licence fees, and track that as some shifted to open source. It is a nonsense that agencies would pay as much in support for open source as they pay in licence fees and support charges at present. Indeed, in terms of encouraging a local IT industry, it would be good to report a break-down by department of what is paid to truly local (Australian-owned, not local subsidiary of international company) IT entities, and what is paid to majority-overseas-owned corporations. As the implementation of QA and super-contracts had the effect of shutting local companies out of Federal government IT, but for a few examples, representing a tiny minority of expenditure. If AGIMO is not to hold up a mirror to just how un-clever the government of the clever-country has been in this respect, then we need an Australian government information management entity which will do such a task, as departments left to their own devices will always see national interests as outside their responsibility.