5 Replies Latest reply on Jan 26, 2018 4:31 PM by Chad Chelius

    Accessibility Checker 10 vs 11

    baspling Level 1

      We tested out one PDF on two different computers. One computer had Adobe 10 and the other had Adobe 11. When we did the full-check on this document we each got different results back from the checker pointing out different issues within the document. How do we know which one is right? and what is the main difference in the NEW Adobe 11 program that differs from the 10 in the case of using the Accessibility Checker?

        • 1. Re: Accessibility Checker 10 vs 11
          a C student Level 3

          Hi baspling,


          I do not have experience with Acrobat 11, but I very much suspect that neither is right. Adobe’s accessibility checker is highly inadequate in my experience. I use it just as a first quick check. I encourage you to try the free PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC) from the Swiss foundation Zugang Für Alle (Access For All). It is far more thorough – the best PDF accessibility checker available today despite being freeware. It also offers a very useful preview feature that lets you see the PDF in the way it would be heard by someone using a screen reader.


          a 'C' student

          • 2. Re: Accessibility Checker 10 vs 11

            The main difference is in what the two check against with regards to accessibility standards.

            < X checks against now outdated WCAG 1.0

            >= XI, DC, etc. checks against WCAG 2.0 and PDF/UA accessibility standards.


            I also agree with A 'C' student, PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC 3) is easy, fast, and thorough.


            • 3. Re: Accessibility Checker 10 vs 11
              Chad Chelius Adobe Community Professional

              A C Student is correct in that the Acrobat Accessibility Checker is the low bar regarding accessibility. That being said, Acrobat X is checking against outdated specs where Acrobat XI is checking more  up-to-date spec. I'm sorry diprosew, but Acrobat XI nor DC checks against WCAG 2.0 or PDF U/A. If you run a more robust checker such as PAC 2.0 or the Commonlook Validator that does match the true specs for these standards, they'll find many more issues than Acrobat does. That being said, to answer the OP's question, I'd go with Acrobat XI over X for the results.

              1 person found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Accessibility Checker 10 vs 11
                olafdruemmer Level 3

                Sorry to disagree here:

                https://forums.adobe.com/people/Chad+Chelius  wrote


                but Acrobat XI nor DC checks against WCAG 2.0 or PDF U/A.

                Current versions of Acrobat DC can check against PDF/UA - just check out the "Preflight" module ("Edit" -> "Preflight..."), switch to the "PDF standards" library, and look for the Preflight profile "Verify compliance with PDF/UA-1 (syntax checks only)". As the name of the profile makes clear - it only does carry out the syntax checks. For semantic checks (is H1 used for level 1 headings? are lists tagged as list? is the reading order reflected properly in the tagging structure? is all real content included in the tagging structure? do the alternate texts make any sense?  etc. pp.), additional tools will be needed (you may want to check out the free Acrobat plug-in 'callas pdfGoHTML" and its diagnostic view).




                PS: Just for context - I happen to work for callas software, the maker of the "pdfGoHTML" plug-in, and actually also the developer of the Preflight module in Acrobat (since 2003).

                • 5. Re: Accessibility Checker 10 vs 11
                  Chad Chelius Adobe Community Professional

                  Fair to disagree Olaf and you make a valid point. I should have been clear as I was responding to the OP regarding the Full Check. The Full Check doesn't check against PDF/UA standards. I like that you point out the PDF U/A preflight check and that is more robust but still lacking in the big picture of PDF U/A compliance (syntax checks only) as you point out.