I realize PDF Shaper Pro 5.1 has many more features, but I can't trust the integrity of those operations either, without conducting an in-depth review.

Output produced by PDF Shaper Pro 5.1 simply does not meet the required thresholds.įor me, the points listed above are show-stoppers. Any PDF posted to a website must meet certain requirements in those countries (WCAG Section 508 AODA BS 8878 etc.). There were additional issues but, in my opinion, they would not have as much impact as the ones listed above.Ĭompliance with Accessibility standards for web-based information is required in most countries now. (this presents a major Accessibility issue). MS kept the list structure intact: tags labels and content.ĥb. (this presents a major Accessibility issue).ĥa.

MS kept the table structure intact: rows table headers table descriptors and regularity of rows and columns.Ĥb. SP threw out the alternate text and annotations for the images (this presents a major Accessibility issue).Ĥa. MS kept the alternate text and annotations for the images.ģb. SP threw out the tagging structure information (this presents a major Accessibility issue).ģa. MS kept the tagging structure information (tab order).Ģb. SP threw out the heading styles and changed them to paragraphs (this presents a major Accessibility issue).Ģa. Headings were still headings, with the proper levels. MS kept the original Word 'style' information intact for the most part. The following points are the significant differences I noted:ġa. So, I opened both files with a PDF object viewer to see how they were built.

Upon closer inspection, I noticed there were several issues in both output files. At first glance they looked very much like the original source file.Ģ. Both the SP-converted file and the MS-converted file looked presentable. doc test file contains headings, paragraphs (some with indents), lists, tables, boxes, and 2 images.ġ. Microsoft Save to PDF Add-inįor brevity's sake, let's call them SP vs.

Video Shaper Pro 5.1 free instals