Once PDF remediation is complete, we must run a verification to check for accessibility. We do this to identify anything that might have been missed, any errors that may have been made, or, if you’re using CommonLook PDF, any steps that were intentionally skipped. Two types of verifications can be run.
A “Structural” check will test the document for empty tags, broken links, and other issues. It also tests tables, links, tables of contents, and other tags to ensure that they have been assembled correctly, including their required nested tags.
For example, the Structural check will verify that Table tags contain Table Row tags and that those tags then contain Table Data and/or Header cells.
An “Accessibility” check will test the document against one or more established accessibility standards: WCAG 2.0AA, WCAG 2.1AA, WCAG 2.2AA, HHS, and PDF/UA. These standards ensure that the content is readable and usable by everyone.
We typically encourage our clients to check against at least one structural standard and one accessibility standard. While this is ideal to ensure the document meets best practices and requirements, many documents only technically need to meet one standard.
The logical question then becomes, “Well, which standard should I choose?”
This is not always a cut-and-dry answer, but we can provide some general guidance. It sometimes depends on the industry, organization, client, or even the company’s opinion.
Structural Standards
Currently, there is one structural standard available for PDFs. ISO 32000-1, which was released in 2008, provides PDF-specific guidelines for document accessibility.
This will eventually change, as ISO 32000-2, more commonly known as “PDF 2.0,” will be adopted over time. While PDF 2.0 has been published, many implementations have yet to adopt its features.
Consequently, it wouldn’t be sensible to test against this newly published standard since PDF readers and assistive technology do not yet support many of the changes included. For now, the choice of structural standard is straightforward – regardless of your industry, organization, or objectives, use ISO 32000-1 for structural standard verification.
Accessibility Standards
The most common accessibility standards, used by the majority of our clients, are the WCAG-based standards. WCAG, or the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, is the most widely adopted and easiest to satisfy within this group.
It has undergone multiple revisions and serves as an updated version of the well-recognized standard, Section 508. Depending on the organization, some groups still utilize WCAG 2.0, while others have transitioned to the more current versions, 2.1 and 2.2.
Since the differences between the versions are minimal, your remediation process won’t vary significantly based on which one you choose. We always encourage our clients to consult the newest version available to them. WCAG 2.2 is our primary recommendation for clients, as it is not only the most recent version but also the most widely accessible and user-friendly.
The HHS standard is written and used by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Because of this, nearly all healthcare professionals use it. We recommend it for anyone in the healthcare industry or working on documents related to health and medicine.
Lastly, PDF/UA, the conversational name for ISO 14289, is considered the “gold standard” for PDF accessibility. This is because it is the only PDF-specific accessibility standard. WCAG, for example, applies to web content but includes PDF-specific components.
PDF/UA, on the other hand, explores the potential within PDF documents and focuses specifically on making that content accessible. We encourage using the PDF/UA standard for those who want their PDF accessibility to exceed WCAG’s requirements; however, the reality is that WCAG is an acceptable goal for the vast majority of document remediators.
In summary, in some cases, deciding which accessibility standard to test against is an organization-wide decision.
Outside of specific industries, such as healthcare companies using HHS, a group will need to have the important conversation about which standard to use. If we are asked for a blanket decision, we usually recommend WCAG 2.2, as it is the most up-to-date WCAG standard.
Using WCAG standards offers the other major benefit of only needing to learn and implement one specification for both web and document content.
