Checking Content Accessibility

Caitlin Malone

1 Checking Content Accessibility

Key Takeaways

It’s easier to build accessibly from scratch than to fix content later.
Automated tools are a good start, but won’t catch everything. You should always review your content yourself.
Check the Basics section of this guide for common accessibility fixes.
Conduct external tool reviews on any websites or software besides Canvas, edX, Adobe PDF or Microsoft programs.
Check this guide for solutions to domain-specific accessibility concerns.
Flag complicated accessibility issues for expert review.

Overview

Making accessible content goes hand-in-hand with identifying accessibility errors. To build accessibly, you must first know what pitfalls to avoid. To support existing content, you must know how to rebuild it accessibly.

There are a number of methods available for identifying accessibility errors, including:

Manual review (with assistance from automated tools)
External tool review
Expert review (conducted by the IU Assistive Technology and Accessibility Centers (ATAC))

You may be asked to use these methods in three ways:

Process 1: build content accessibly from scratch based on an established design
Process 2: remediate existing content and address any identified accessibility issues
Process 3: create an accommodation plan for content that can’t be remediated

Begin by reading the rest of this page. Then familiarize yourself with the Basics section so you know what accessibility errors to look out for. At the end of the Basics section, more information is available about automated tools, manual reviews, expert reviews, and accommodation plans.

Methods for Identifying Accessibility Errors

There are three main methods available for identifying accessibility issues and checking your work:

Manual review
External tool review
Expert review

These methods should be used together, not as substitutes for one another. Each method has its own purpose, and no single method will catch all accessibility issues.

Manual Review

Manual reviews are conducted by support staff and content creators. They include direct human inspections of content appearance, formatting, and code, as well as the use of automated tools to catch common errors.

Automated tools are built-in accessibility checkers that can identify simple errors. They are often a good starting point for addressing accessibility, as they cover common errors such as missing image alt text, formatting errors, lack of headings, and so on. More advanced checkers like the Universal Design Online Content Inspection Tool (UDOIT) and Blackboard Ally are able to flag even more errors.

However, automated tools should always be paired with a manual review. Each tool has its strengths, but also known weaknesses. No tool will catch all errors, and many complicated errors are not caught by any of our current tools.

At IU, automated tools include:

The Canvas accessibility checker, available in the Rich Content Editor on each course page
Universal Design Online Content Inspection Tool (UDOIT), available in Canvas
Blackboard Ally (currently in pilot for Canvas)
Microsoft Accessibility Checker, available in most Office programs such as Word
Adobe PDF Accessibility Checker

During manual reviews, you should run automated tools to catch simple errors, then follow up with a manual inspection of the page formatting and code. Manual inspections catch many errors that are not caught by automated tools, such as:

Text formatting
Color contrast
Reading order
Text organization
Images with a file name as their alt text
Complicated table formatting
Video accessibility
Document formatting, color contrast, and reading order

Flag any interactive tools (such as digital tools, publisher platforms, and external websites) and more complicated accessibility issues for an external tool review and a potential expert review. See External Tool Review on this page for more information. See Expert Review on this page for a list of possible complicated accessibility issues. The ATAC handles expert accessibility reviews and can also be called in to assist with more complex, for-credit courses.

For more information, see Manual Review and Automated Tools (COMING SOON).

External Tool Review

An external tool review is a manual review conducted on a website, interactive activity, or software.

In general, most external tools contained in for-credit courses will need accommodation plans. Whenever possible, try to use tools already supported by IU. With supported tools, more information about accessibility issues and best practices is usually available. If that is not possible, review the tool yourself to determine what alternative activities will need to be provided to make the tool accessible.

Contact the ATAC if you want to include an external tool in public-facing content, such as Expand, edX, or IU websites.

For more information, see External Tool Review (COMING SOON).

Expert Review

Expert reviews are conducted by our colleagues within the ATAC. The ATAC staff have been specifically trained to create both accessible content and accommodations that meet the individual needs of learners. They use their knowledge, the tools described above and specialized tools to identify and remediate accessibility issues.

If your course contains more complicated accessibility issues, an expert review may be required. These types of issues may include, but are not limited to:

Complex diagrams with domain-specific content
Domain-specific notation (such as special symbols or bold, italic, or underlined text that conveys meaning)
Images with visual bias (images that can’t be described without giving away key information for assessment questions)
Interactive tools such as Sketchfab, virtual tours, publisher platforms, etc.
IU tools provided by external vendors, such as VoiceThread, Adobe Spark, etc.
Required software packages such as 3D editing software, statistics software, database software, programming tools, etc.

For more information, see Expert Review (COMING SOON).

Processes for Working with Content

Process 1: Build Accessibly from the Beginning

Automated and manual accessibility reviews are highly recommended for any course build at IU. Building accessibly from the start produces content that includes all of your audience and provides a better experience for all.

It’s recommended to start by familiarizing yourself with the Basics section of this guide, then build using automated tools to support your work.

If you are supporting the content owner(s): Whenever possible, guide the content owner(s) in building their own accessible content. Teaching content owners how to build using accessibility best practices helps build their accessibility toolkit and reduce potential work from an accommodation request later on.

Below is a suggested process for how to build accessibly.

Begin with a plan for the content’s design. Identify the core goals for the content’s design. If you are not the content owner(s), discuss with them what their goals are. Review any drafts, design documents and learning objectives (if applicable). Consider audience and communication goals. This will help you determine accessibility needs, content relevancy, and what should (or should not) be modified.
Build your content using the best practices outlined in this guide. Use basic automated tools (Canvas accessibility checker, Microsoft Word checker, PDF checker, etc.) to double-check your work. If you are supporting the content owner(s), then whenever possible train the content owner to make their own fixes and identify accessibility issues.
If applicable, run a more in-depth automated review such as UDOIT or Blackboard Ally. For documents, run the Microsoft Accessibility Checker or the PDF Accessibility Checker one last time on the finished content. Fix any identified issues.
Before publishing the content, conduct a manual review.
1. Make any manual fixes that are identified.
2. If you are uncertain about any features, flag them for an external tool review and/or expert review.
3. Develop an accommodation plan for any content that can’t be made accessible.
If time allows, schedule an expert review. Provide the expert access to the content ahead of time, then meet with the expert and all content owners or project staff. Discuss both the issues identified and how they can be remediated or accommodated.
Finish by meeting one last time with the content owner(s) and/or project staff. Discuss any outstanding issues. Provide documentation for how to support the content in the future, including how to modify it accessibly and how to use the accommodation plan. If you are the content owner, store your documentation in a place you and your colleagues can access for future revisions. If you are supporting the content owner(s), provide the documentation in a shareable format that the content owner can access or store in their own files.

Process 2: Remediate Existing Content

You may be asked to work with or conduct an accessibility review of existing content. The preferred option for addressing errors is to apply an accessible fix to the main content. Fixing the most common errors, rather than providing alternatives, makes content much more accessible for the majority of viewers, and reduces the likelihood of last-minute accommodation requests. Accessible fixes can be applied using automated tools, platform interface tools, or manual changes to content or HTML.

The Basics section of this guide contains instructions for remediating the most common accessibility errors found in text, images, videos, tables, and documents. These errors are likely to have been flagged during an automated tool or manual review. Apply the fixes to the best of your ability. Then review the content again to make sure it passes both automated tool requirements and a visual inspection.

Some issues may require complicated fixes or may not be able to be remediated. Flag these items for an expert review or potential accommodation plan. Document these issues in a place that can be shared with the content owner(s) and any expert reviewers, as applicable.

If you are supporting the content owner(s): Whenever possible, discuss the fixes you apply with the content owner(s) and walk them through making the changes so they can make them on their own. This will help build their accessibility toolkit for future course revisions.

The process for this is as follows:

Perform a full automated review of all content using a tool such as UDOIT, Blackboard Ally, Microsoft Word Accessibility Checker, or the PDF Accessibility Checker. (For more information, see Manual Review and Automated Tools (COMING SOON).) Compile the results in a single document or location, with information about the location of each error and what the issue was.
1. If you are supporting the content owner(s): If possible, show the content owner how to run the accessibility checker(s) and how to interpret the results.
Perform a full manual review of all content. Identify any additional issues that were not flagged by the automated review. Conduct an external tool review for any external resources that you find. Compile your results along with the results from the automated review.
Review the results with the content owner(s) and/or project staff. Discuss how you identified the issues, what they mean, and how they can be fixed.
Develop a plan for remediating the content. Prioritize which issues are the most urgent based on how essential the content is and your project timeline. Identify issues that can be fixed with automated tools, issues that require manual fixes, and issues that require expert review.
Apply automated fixes using the best practices outlined in the Basics section of this guide.
1. If you are supporting the content owner(s): Guide the content owner(s) through fixing the issues themselves if time allows.
Apply manual fixes. Use both the Basics section and advanced techniques outlined in this guide.
If time allows, schedule an expert review. Provide the expert access to the content ahead of time, then meet with the expert, content owner(s), and/or project staff. Discuss both the issues identified and how they can be remediated or accommodated.
Develop an accommodation plan, if applicable, for any features of the content that can’t be remediated.
Finish by meeting one last time with the content owner(s) and/or project staff. Discuss any outstanding issues. Provide documentation for how to support the content in the future, including how to modify it while maintaining accessibility and how to use the accommodation plan. If you are the content owner, store your documentation in a place you and your colleagues can access for future revisions. If you are supporting the content owner(s), provide the documentation in a shareable format that the content owner can access or store in their own files.

Process 3: Create an Accommodation Plan

Accommodation plans are a list of known potential accessibility issues and suggested alternative activities. They should be applied to private content and for-credit courses only.

Public-facing content such as Expand courses, edX content, and websites are legally required to be accessible without accommodation plans. In these cases, consult the ATAC regarding any interactive activities, linked resources, or external tools that you intend to use.

An accommodation plan may be made after building accessibly or remediating content. They are a “last resort” when main content can’t be reasonably made accessible. Not all content can be made 100% accessible, and some learners may have specialized needs. Accommodation plans allow content owners and project staff to plan ahead for content that has known potential limitations.

Evaluate content for issues after most of your building or remediation work is finished. If necessary, you can schedule an External Review with the ATAC to ask for guidance.

For more information, see Making Accommodation Plans (COMING SOON).

Where to Go From Here

To learn how to use accessibility techniques in these processes, begin by reviewing the Basics section of this guide. When you’re finished, continue to the other sections for more advanced information.