Accessibility?
July 27, 2015Don’t mind me; I seem to have reached the Grumpy Old Git stage of my convalescence. This morning, for example, I thought I would read the Tax Assurance Commissioner’s new Annual Report – I know, I know, but there’s only so many episodes of Bargain Hunt and Time Team you can watch before your brain melts and dribbles out of your ears altogether.
Here it is: on gov.uk of course, on a page of “collections”, where the 2012-13, 2013-14 reports are collected along with the new one, for 2014-15.
Click on any of them, however, and you get the message that “This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology”. Now, wait a minute, wasn’t the government’s own website supposed to meet the government’s own standard for accessibility? Why is the report a PDF document (which is a bugger to get to a reasonable size for comfortable reading) rather than HTML, which – as the government’s own Service Design Manual points out – is a more accessible option:
For written reports, the native format of the web (HTML) should be your default option. PDF can be an excellent display format, but without additional effort it can be inappropriate for users of screenreading software.
A pdf document should only be used where there is “no other option“:
HTML is quicker, easier and more widely usable/accessible than PDF, but where no other option is possible this PDF guidance should be followed.
I’m lucky enough not to require use of specialist software to read this document: I’m just pissed off that the text shows up on my laptop in a font too small for me to read comfortably without a lot of fiddling about, and that it took me a good ten minutes to find the control to increase the magnification.
But I wonder why there are so many HMRC and HMT documents which pop up as PDFs instead of HTLM. Is there really “no other option”, or is there a default to seeking an easier life and not worrying about it till someone makes a fuss?
Answers on a postcard…
tiintax 
Leave a Reply