PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + PublishingĬonsulting. We recommend that our clients run the Acrobat checker first, correct theĪcrobat does not find all errors.not even close!īevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = We find that no one tool finds everything. > The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing > 'passed' and the document will have failures in Acrobat. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as > use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only > between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs. > So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences > errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site." > not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many > The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an > telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC > Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools. In myĮxperience with PAC 2 and 3, it won't pass easily (and of course weĪcknowledge that neither program can (yet) check for colour, alt goodness,
Matterhorn Protocol but Acrobat also checks some of it too). Happening, as PAC is way more detailed than Acrobat's checker (people willĬorrect me if I am wrong, but Acrobat came from WCAG and S508 and PAC from One thing to ask.if they are sending you documents that passed PAC, may IĪsk what errors you found in Acrobat? In my view, that should not be In Europe it is used a lot, but other countries, it depends. This is my experience only and I find it depends where one
#Pdf accessibility checker free for mac mac#
Program! I use both Mac and PC, and it is annoying that I have to pull out In my experience, PAC is not used by most people, even though it is a great Subject: Re: Acrobat Accessibility Check vs. The other wrinkle with PAC is it only works on Windows, and we a growing contingent of folks on Macs. I have reviewed PDF's they send back to us as 'passed' and the document will have failures in Acrobat. Acrobat ? Is it better to use them in tandem? I'm not crazy about a vendor admonishing us to only use the tool THEY use. So, what might be the reason for what they think are marked differences between what PAC reports as pass/fail/errors vs.
The vendor states that PAC is the industry standard and "Acrobat should not be used for a checker - That is the reason they were getting so many errors when in fact it was passing when run through the PAC site." In house, we've been using Acrobat since we don't yet have an Enterprise solution for PDFs. We have a vendor that is telling us NOT to use Acrobat's A11y check tool, and to instead use PAC 3.0. Looking for some feedback on these 2 tools.
Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)
0 kommentar(er)
