skip to main content
10.1145/2851581.2892588acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Uninteresting Tour Through Why Our Research Papers Aren't Accessible

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Our research is delivered as Portable Document Format (PDF) documents, and very few include basic metadata to make them accessible to people with disabilities. As a result, many people are either unable to read them efficiently or at all. Over the past few years, we have tried everything from writing guidelines and giving accessibility feedback, to enforcing accessibility standards and volunteering to make PDFs accessible ourselves. The problem with making PDFs accessible is in part due to the lack of good tools, but the complexity of the PDF format makes improving tools difficult. Making accessible research papers is as much about our choices as a community: our choice of publication format, and our choice to make accessibility a voluntary task for authors. In this paper, we overview the context in which PDFs became our publication format, the difficulty in making PDF documents accessible given current tools, what we have tried to make our PDFs more accessible, and potential options for doing better in the future.

References

  1. Adobe Systems Incorporated 1993. Portable Document Format Reference Manual (1 ed.). Adobe Systems Incorporated, Reading, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Adobe Systems Incorporated 2000. Portable Document Format Reference Manual (2 ed.). Adobe Systems Incorporated, Reading, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Adobe Systems Incorporated 2006. Portable Document Format Reference Manual (6 ed.). Adobe Systems Incorporated, Reading, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Adobe Systems Incorporated 2012. Adobe Acrobat XI Pro Accessibility Guide: Best Practices for PDF Accessibility. Adobe Systems Incorporated, 345 Park Avenue, San Jose, CA 95110--2704 USA. http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/acrobat.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Erin Brady, Yu Zhong, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2015. Creating Accessible PDFs for Conference Proceedings. In Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference (W4A '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 34, 4 pages. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2745555.2746665 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stacy M Branham and Shaun K Kane. 2015. The Invisible Work of Accessibility: How Blind Employees Manage Accessibility in Mixed-Ability Workplaces. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ACM, 163--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ben Caldwell, Michael Cooper, L Guarino Reid, and Gregg Vanderheiden. 2008. Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Vol. 11. W3C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jonathan Frank. 2008. Web accessibility for the blind: Corporate social responsibility or litigation avoidance?. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the 41st Annual. IEEE, 284--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Stephanie Hackett, Bambang Parmanto, and Xiaoming Zeng. 2004. Accessibility of Internet websites through time. In ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing. ACM, 32--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. ISO 14289--1:2014 2014. Document management applications -- Electronic document file format enhancement for accessibility. Standard. International Organization for Standardization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO 19005--2:2011 2011. Document management -- Electronic document file format for long-term preservation. Standard. International Organization for Standardization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shaun K Kane, Jessie A Shulman, Timothy J Shockley, and Richard E Ladner. 2007. A web accessibility report card for top international university web sites. In Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A). ACM, 148--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Reuben Kirkham, John Vines, and Patrick Olivier. 2015. Being Reasonable: A Manifesto for Improving the Inclusion of Disabled People in SIGCHI Conferences. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 601--612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Chris Law, Julie Jacko, and Paula Edwards. 2005. Programmer-focused website accessibility evaluations. In Proceedings of the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, 20--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jonathan Lazar, Aaron Allen, Jason Kleinman, and Chris Malarkey. 2007. What frustrates screen reader users on the web: A study of 100 blind users. International Journal of human-computer interaction 22, 3 (2007), 247--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jonathan Lazar, Alfreda Dudley-Sponaugle, and Kisha-Dawn Greenidge. 2004. Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior 20, 2 (2004), 269--288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. John MacFarlane. 2013. Pandoc: a universal document converter. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Valerie S Morash, Yue-Ting Siu, Joshua A Miele, Lucia Hasty, and Steven Landau. 2015. Guiding Novice Web Workers in Making Image Descriptions Using Templates. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jakob Nielson. 2001. Avoid PDF for On-Screen Reading. (2001). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/avoid-pdf-for-on-screen-reading/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jakob Nielson. 2003. PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption. (2003). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/pdf-unfit-for-human-consumption/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomas Park. 2015. PubCSS: Formatting Academic Publications in HTML & CSS. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jane Seale. 2013. E-learning and disability in higher education: accessibility research and practice. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Hironobu Takagi, Shinya Kawanaka, Masatomo Kobayashi, Takashi Itoh, and Chieko Asakawa. 2008. Social accessibility: achieving accessibility through collaborative metadata authoring. In Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, 193--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Cindy Tandy and Mike Meacham. 2009. Removing the Barriers for Students with Disabilities: Accessible Online and Web-Enhanced Courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 29, 3 (2009), 313--328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. John Warnock. 1991. The Camelot Project. (1991). http://bit.ly/pdfwhitepaperGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Brian Wentz, Paul T Jaeger, and Jonathan Lazar. 2011. Retrofitting accessibility: The legal inequality of after-the-fact online access for persons with disabilities in the USA. First Monday 16, 11 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An Uninteresting Tour Through Why Our Research Papers Aren't Accessible

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      3954 pages
      ISBN:9781450340823
      DOI:10.1145/2851581

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '16 Paper Acceptance Rate1,000of5,000submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader