PDF Accessibility Audit

Most PDFs that fail an accessibility review fail for reasons an automated checker cannot see. The tags exist but the reading order jumps a column. The alt text is present but describes what the image looks like instead of what it says. The table has header cells that are not associated with anything. The form can be filled in with a mouse and not with a keyboard.

This audit is a person reading your document with a screen reader and a keyboard, against WCAG 2.1 AA, Section 508 and PDF/UA, and writing down what fails and why. One PDF, up to 25 pages. You receive a findings report you can put in a compliance file.

The terms, up front: 7 business days. The $299 credits in full against remediation placed within 60 days, so if you go ahead the audit cost nothing. And if your file turns out to be a scan with no text layer, we tell you and refund you — there is nothing to audit in that case, and you should not pay to find that out.

See the actual deliverable

You should not have to take our word for what a $299 report contains.

Download the full 25-page sample report (PDF, 511 KB)

It is the real format, not a marketing summary. It audits a fictional transit authority’s rider guide and reduced-fare application — 24 pages, 19 findings — and it contains:

• An executive summary for decision makers — the overall result, the five issues that matter most in plain language, and a recommended path. One page, readable by someone who will never open the appendices.
• A conformance scorecard against all three standards, with the basis for each verdict spelled out — which success criteria failed, how many Matterhorn checkpoints, which Section 508 clauses.
• 19 findings with stable identifiers (F-01 to F-19), each carrying severity, the criterion it fails, the affected pages, what a user actually experiences, and the fix. The identifiers matter: you quote “F-04” to a vendor rather than describing the problem again.
• A phased remediation roadmap with hour estimates, ordered so the cheapest high-impact fixes come first.
• A section on what already works — because a report that only lists failures tells you nothing about what to preserve.
• Appendices: the full WCAG 2.1 A/AA checklist, the PDF/UA Matterhorn checkpoint summary, the Section 508 mapping, the assistive-technology test protocol with results, and a glossary.

Two things in that sample are worth noticing, because they are what an honest audit looks like:

It says the document does not conform. All three standards, stated plainly on page 3. A report that grades generously is worthless to you the moment somebody checks.

It says what we cannot do. In its own words: there is no such thing as an “ADA-certified” PDF, the report is not a legal opinion, and no auditor can guarantee a document will never be the subject of a complaint. What it documents is whether the file meets the recognised technical standards — which is the thing that is actually knowable.

And one detail that says more than the copy does: the sample report is itself a tagged, accessible PDF — proper heading structure, table header cells, decorative content artifacted, document language and title set, no security settings blocking assistive technology. It would pass the audit it describes.

Start with the free tools. Genuinely

There are two cheaper rungs below this one, and you should use them first.

The free PDF accessibility checker runs in your browser and gives you an instant automated pass/fail on a single file. If your document is simple and it comes back clean, you may not need this audit at all. We would rather tell you that than sell you a report saying the same thing.

The free accessibility assessment is the right route when you have a backlog. Send a sample and you get a scoped plan across the whole set — what fails which standard, what remediation involves, and what to prioritise. That is a different question from auditing one document.

This product is for the third case: one specific document has to be evidenced.

In practice that is almost always one of four moments. If you recognise yourself here, this is the right thing to buy:

• A bid or RFP response scored on accessibility. You have to say something defensible about a document you are submitting, and “we believe it is accessible” is not an answer that scores.
• A complaint, grievance or records request from someone who could not read a document you published. You need to know what is actually wrong before you respond, and you need it in writing.
• A document about to go out to the public — a notice, a form, a handbook — where finding out afterwards is the expensive version.
• A grant or contract deliverable with an accessibility condition attached to payment or renewal.

If none of those is you and you are working from a backlog rather than a specific document, the free accessibility assessment or the $149 Accessibility Compliance Review will serve you better and we would rather you took one of those.

What the audit covers

• Tag tree and semantic structure — whether the document has real structure or a decorative approximation of it.
• Reading order, as assistive technology actually encounters it, which is frequently not the order a sighted reader sees.
• Heading levels and document outline — so a screen-reader user can navigate rather than listen from the top.
• Lists and tables, including whether header cells are associated with their data. An unassociated table is a wall of numbers with no meaning.
• Alt text presence and quality on images, charts and figures — a chart described by its appearance instead of its data passes automated checks and fails a reader.
• Form fields — labels, tooltips, tab order, and whether the form can be completed without a mouse.
• Colour contrast.
• Language, title and metadata — small, mandatory, and almost always wrong.
• Bookmarks and navigation on longer documents.
• Whether the file is tagged text at all, rather than a scanned image with no text layer. This is the single most common fatal defect we see, and it makes every other check moot.

What you receive

A written findings report containing, for each failure:

• What fails — the specific element, on the specific page.
• Which standard and success criterion it fails, named explicitly. Not “this could be more accessible.”
• The real-world impact — what a person using a screen reader, a keyboard, or magnification actually experiences.
• What remediation involves, and whether it is better done in the source file or the PDF.

Written to be handed to somebody else: a procurement officer, a compliance lead, counsel, or the person who asked why they could not read your document.

Remediation is quoted separately, on purpose

Until the audit is done, nobody knows how much work the file needs. A fixed remediation price attached to an unexamined document either overcharges you or undercommits us.

So you get the findings report and a remediation quote based on what the audit found — and the $299 credits in full against that work if you place it within 60 days. If you go ahead, the audit cost you nothing.

You are equally free to remediate in-house, or with anyone else, using the report. It is your document and your evidence, and it was written to be usable by somebody who did not produce it.

If you do want us to do the work, PDF remediation and document accessibility is the service, and Section 508 document remediation covers federal and federally funded work specifically.

Two things this is not

It is not a certification. There is no such thing as being “ADA certified” — no certification exists, and any vendor offering one is selling something that is not real. This audit documents conformance against named standards. That is what compliance files and procurement responses actually need.

It is not a legal determination. An audit tells you what fails and why. Whether that creates liability, satisfies an obligation, or resolves a complaint is for your counsel and the relevant authority. We will give you accurate findings; we will not tell you that you are safe.

When language and accessibility land on the same file

A translated vital document that is not accessible has solved half the problem. A remediated document that only exists in English has solved the other half.

Both obligations frequently attach to the same file — a public notice, a school handbook, a patient or member communication. Because this sits inside a language company operating since 2009, one vendor can handle the certified translation and the accessibility of the same document, with the terminology consistent between them.

How to order

1. Read the sample report so you know exactly what arrives.
2. Run the free checker. If it is clean and your document is simple, you may be done.
3. Order the audit for the document that has to be evidenced. Up to 25 pages.
4. Send the PDF — and the source file if you have it. Word, InDesign or PowerPoint sources matter: remediation is usually cheaper and more durable done in the source, and the audit will tell you whether that is the better route for you.
5. Receive the findings report in 7 business days, with a remediation quote. If you are working to a hard date, tell us before you pay and we will confirm against it.

And the one case where you should not pay us: if the file turns out to be a scan with no text layer, we tell you and refund the $299. There is nothing to audit, and what that document needs is OCR and rebuilding — we will tell you which and what it costs.

More than 25 pages, or more than one file? Request a quote or start with the free assessment — for a backlog, that is genuinely the cheaper path.