I'm not certain I understand this message. If I understand it correctly though, what you are saying is that first, we may have a case under the truth in advertising laws here in the us and that we may also have a case if pdf is picked up as an accessible solution by the correct 508 covered entity. I can see the first one working only if we can establish that they are not telling us that pdf is now accessible under the following circumstances but if it is only said to be accessible. The covered entity under 508 would certainly need to consider carefully before placing themselves in the untenable position under the right circumstances of providing pdf as their response to meeting the requirements of section 508 if they intend to feed their information out to the public or have users who are not going to be able to get on board with the appropriate tools due to the entities over sight or because of the network/platform... Now, there is something else to consider. Let's say that a 508 covered entity is looking at document delivery inside the agency and let's say that they are happily running an accessible network with windows.95 machines being used by users with jfw 3.5, the same level of window eyes and some other tools and that all is on as much of a par as possible and they do not plan to make any changes to the rest of their it but they have this conundrum. In order to meet 508, they have to spend all this money to fit jaws for windows or window eyes latest versions into their systems because they have decided to adopt pdf as their accessible electronic format and did not realize this. Now, let's say that the decision can be called back. If it can, they may claim an undue burden in it resources, cost, job downtime training etc and their solution would then be incorrectly that they have no accessible solution. Let's suppose though that they go ahead with the plan to use pdf. Gee, we have to spend or find or some how acquire all this resource to make these changes for these workers because of our decision. I think this is a miss use of tax dollars and should be treated as such. We have several grounds we can go with folks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Ward" <tward@xxxxxxxxxx> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:55 AM Subject: Re: Problems with pdf files. Well, I have a suggestion. why don't we start getting Speakup and Emacsspeak users together, and start writingAdobe systems. Basically, tell them to make an accessible reader for Linux or stop advertising that pdf files are accessible when they are not. We have strength in numbers, and the only way to get anything done is to get the root of the problem. Which is openly scream section 508. while Adobe Acrobat for Windows is accessible the Linux version is not. Nor do they have plans in that direction. ----- Original Message ----- From: Amanda Lee <amanda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:30 PM Subject: Re: Problems with pdf files. > I bet we could beat them on the technicality that as persons who are blind > seeking to enable a document to be accessible and in an alternate format > which we otherwise could not read, is this side of the law but provided one > uses the information for his or her own use and does not post it where it > can be accessed by others, then doubt there's much that would hold-up in a > court of law. > > So if I have a colleague print the document and I then scan it with an OCR > program, is that illegal? Yet I technically would have displayed the > document in another form. So I also suppose it is illegal to magnify the > font on the screen so that a low vision person can read it? Godf forbid! > don't change the colors on your screen such that it is easier for someone > who needs different color contrast. So let's a bunch ofblind folks get > together and write a .pdf cracker! I'm ready to go to jail in protest! > hahahahaha! it's tempting because this is really against the ADA and > Section 508 and against other laws. I feel sorry for the poor slob who went > to jail. I'd like to see where this case is documented. > > Amanda Lee > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kirk Wood" <cpt.kirk at 1tree.net> > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:27 PM > Subject: Re: Problems with pdf files. > > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Steve Holmes wrote: > > > .... Key here is > > > getting around copy-protection. I really fault Adobe systems on this > one. > > > Surely, there's gotta be a way to expose PDF text to the reader with or > > > with out a password .... > > > > There is a way. And the lead programmer recently was realeased after > > spending five months in jail without a trial. He was allowed to return to > > Rusia. If you want to find the program he wrote it is out there. But > > before some dumb ass asks, no I won't point you to it. The whole DeCSS > > trial in the states is over pointing people to a program to circumvent > > such things. I won't be lucky enough to have the EFF help with my defense > > and I know nobody here will send enough money to make up for my lost wages > > alone. > > > > ======= > > Kirk Wood > > Cpt.Kirk at 1tree.net > > > > Nowlan's Theory: > > He who hesitates is not only lost, but several miles from > > the next freeway exit. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup at braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
