2 Replies Latest reply on May 29, 2017 3:02 PM by cdnatadobe

    Table Passes PAC 2 but not Adobe

    cdnatadobe Level 1

      This table passes the PAC 2.0 tool, but I am still getting three errors from the PDF/UA preflight check:

       

       

       

      I stuck to using standard tags (unless <Document> is now non-standard -- I notice Adobe does not create this tag). The <TH> tags all have scopes; there is the TD in R1C1 with no scope, but it should not be counted.  The spans are correct and this does pass Adobe Accessibility Check regularity.

       

      (File shared at https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/7f566430-1364-4b3a-9d98-3c5461f55fe5, RowSpans and ColSpans Table 1a.PDF. The other shared PDF was not preflighted.)

       

      - Chris Niestepski

        • 1. Re: Table Passes PAC 2 but not Adobe
          a_C_student Level 3

          Header Scope properties just do not work reliably with complex tables - try viewing the table in the PAC 1.3 Preview and you will see the problems immediately. Gotta use Header IDs.

          • 2. Re: Table Passes PAC 2 but not Adobe
            cdnatadobe Level 1

            OK, we're getting at a couple of important issues, but for here, let's stick to this one. At Shared Files - Acrobat.com, I put the whole Word doc and PDF with four versions of this table: (1) scopes only, (2) IDs only, (3) both, (4) scopes with the right ColSpan tagged as split (TH over TD). I won't get into it here about why I tried this.

             

            Suffice to say that PAC 2 itself and as part of QuickFix passes the entire document. Acrobat's giving me the flags. I couldn't get Acrobat to show me where on the page the problems were, so I also tagged and checked tables 1, 2, and 4 separately. #2 with the IDs has the same issue -- they all do. And they all pass Acrobat regularity.

            As far as I've checked, all my TH cells have an ID or a scope (or both). And I don't see where I have an irregular table, unless Adobe is trying to force a simple table, which I didn't think was the Matterhorn test point's intent.

             

            The scoping issue I'll move the PDF/UA forum, since we'd be talking tagging technique and not the Acrobat software.

             

            Thanks very much, Chris