UK Web Focus (Brian Kelly)

Innovation and best practices for the Web

Accessibility and Institutional Repositories

Posted by Brian Kelly on 12 Dec 2006

There has been some discussion on the JISC-Repositories JISCMail list (under the confusing subject line of “PLoS business models, global village”) on the issue of file formats for depositing scholarly papers. Some people (including myself) feel that open formats such as XHTML should be the preferred format; others feel that the effort required in creating XHTML can be a barrier to populating digital repositories, and that use of PDF can provide a simple low-effort solution, especially if authors are expected to take responsibility for uploading their papers to an institutional repository.

An issue I raised was the accessibility of resources in digital repositories. There are well established guidelines developed by WAI which can help to ensure that HTML content can be accessible to people with disabilities. Myself and others have argued that the guidelines and the WAI model is flawed, but many of the guidelines are helpful and institutions should seek to implement them (indeed there are legal requirements to ensure that services do not discriminate against people with disabilities).

WCAG 1 has the following requirements:
3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars. [Priority 2]
11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]
11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1].

This seems to be pretty unfriendly towards PDFs, I would argue. WCAG 2.0 (which is in draft form) is, however, neutral regarding file formats – a development I welcome (although the guidelines still have their limitations). However the guidelines still require that content is accessible; and as well as the requirement in the guidelines, there are also legal and ethical requirements to address such issues.

Proprietary formats such as PDF can be made accessible. However I am uncertain as to how alternative text for images and providing structure to PDF documents will happen in a distributed workflow environment.

Rather than dwelling on this (technical) issue, I would like to focus on the policy issues, which should be independent of particular file formats. UK legislation requirements organisations to take reasonable measures to ensure that people with disabilities are not discriminated against unfairly. One could argue that it would be unreasonable to expect hundreds in not thousands of legacy resources to have accessibility metadata and document structures applied to them, if this could be demonstrated to be an expensive exercise of only very limited potential benefit. However if we seek to explore what may be regarded as ‘unreasonable’ we then need to define ‘reasonable’ actions which institutions providing institutional repositories would be expected to take.

One approach would be for the institution to ensure that it provides appropriate training and staff development for authors who are expected to upload documents to repositories. Linked to this may be tools which can flag problem areas to the authors, as documents are being prepared for uploading. There may then be auditing tools which can alert institutions to potential problems.

Related to policies to support the authors, are policies which address specific problems which users with disabilities may have. Clearly many scientific papers (containing formulae, for example) may be difficult to be processed by traditional assistive technologies. Perhaps this is where there is a need for just-in-time accessibility (as opposed to the traditional just-in case approach) or blended accessibility (real world alternatives to digital accessibility barriers).

9 Responses to “Accessibility and Institutional Repositories”

  1. Hi Brian,

    have you seen any of the recent attention that MARS ( has been getting? (my post) A better PDF could certainly alleviate some of the technical problems with accessibility.


  2. The accessibility of PDF documents is something TechDis are currently looking into, and we will be publishing a document on creating accessible PDFs in the relatively near future, as part of the Accessibility Essentials series (

    Much of the accessibility of PDFs comes from the source document from which they are created. If the source document contains the appropriate structure, alt tags etc, these will be carried across to the PDF when it is converted. There are steps that can be taken after the PDF is created to improve its accessibility, however these are fiddly and time consuming.

    The main issue with PDF format is whether the document is tagged correctly for reading order; this can affect the features of Adobe Acrobat Reader such as reflow (reflows the text of a document so that it is continuous rather than in columns, therefore reducing the need to scroll) and read aloud, as well as screen readers.

    However it is important to bear in mind that PDF is an end format designed for documents to be printed, and is just one of a variety of formats available. It is important to consider whether it is the most appropriate format for the intended purpose.

    A useful resource is the accessibility section of the Adobe website –

  3. As a librarian and the person responsible for creating an institutional repository at my university, I sympathize with people who are talking about not putting in any further barriers to deposit. But as an individual with disabilities who requires accessibility software in order to function, I am made queasy by discussions which devolve far too quickly into “well, we mean well, but that legally mandated solution is just far too difficult.” I am constantly put in the position of implementing software which which I myself am unable to use because of its lack of accessibility, and that’s just wrong.

    The conversation on the mailing list upset me, because it came down to “this is too hard; let’s not do it.” Your discussion here of proposing alternative solutions is a better way to go. Staff training is an excellent plan. Doing real cost-benefit analyses about the price of making data available in legacy formats is also an excellent plan. Both are far better than simply saying “there are already too many barriers to convince scholars to deposit in institutional repositories, so we’d better not make it any harder, even if that makes the data inaccessible.”

  4. […] screen area to read the paper. The file may be inaccessible (a Flash interface to a PDF file) , an issue discussed recently, and the PDF file is not easily printed, downloaded or reused (as Andy Powell commented a while […]

  5. […] a role to play in the long term, but the approaches it has taken are worth exploring. Indeed, as I commented on some time ago in a posting about the accessibility of PDF resources in digital repositories) I feel that we […]

  6. JC said

    Isn’t this what the DAISY standard is all about?

  7. Hi JC – Thanks for the comment. I’m aware of DAISY but haven’t looked at how it might be used in this context. I’ll do some reading.

  8. […] Lire la suite sur UK Web Focus […]

  9. […] in December 2006 I wrote a post on Accessibility and Institutional Repositories in which I suggested that it might be “unreasonable to expect hundreds in not thousands of legacy […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: