READ FIRST: Guidelines for entries in this category

[FrankMittelbach]

Please report PDF/UA-2 documents produced by LaTeX and flagged by accessibility checker software as invalid here, preferably with a title such as

[<software name>]: <issue>

and a short example that generates the issue (.tex) and the resulting output (.pdf) so that others can regenerate the issue and verify the results with different checker software, e.g., https://demo.verapdf.org/.

Please ensure that a sample file that exhibits a problem with some validation software is itself valid a PDF/UA-2 document (or UA-1 if that is appropriate) by explicitly setting the desired standard, i.e.,

\DocumentMetadata{tagging=on,pdfstandard=UA-2}

Most accessibility failures are in reality due to the fact that most checkers blindly apply PDF1.7 and PDF/UA-1 rules even if presented a PDF/UA-2 document, and thereby produce spurious errors.

And these errors mean that PDF/UA-2 has difficulties to gain traction (as people have get their checkmarks form whatever checker their organization/university/etc is using) and this means that people are forced to produce documents that are not truly accessible and actually useful to people that are in the need!

So it is important that we collect such wrong results in a central place in order to confront the vendors with the findings to get some attention and hopefully soon see some improvements of this unfortunate situation. For this reason it will also help if you upvote existing issues if you have also been hit by them.

Please use a new entry for each problem (i.e., do not combine problems). That helps if one of the issues turns out to be a problem correctly identified by a checker.

Thanks Frank