Digital Accessibility Checkpoints

Overview

These practical checkpoint groups are organized around common UGA tools and workflows. Each question identifies an area to review while planning, creating, updating, or evaluating digital content.

The checkpoints draw from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, but they do not replace the WCAG specification or a complete conformance evaluation.

Reviewing every question does not mean accessibility work is finished. Automated tools and standard reviews can miss barriers, and people may encounter different barriers depending on their technology, context, and goals. Feedback from people using the content should guide additional work.

How to use the checkpoints

1. Choose the groups that match your work. A course may involve eLC content, documents, slides, videos, and third-party tools.
2. Review while you create. Build accessibility into planning and production instead of waiting for a final check.
3. Use the linked guidance. Open a checkpoint topic when you need instructions, examples, or testing techniques.
4. Document and revisit. Record barriers, corrections, ownership, and follow-up. Review again after meaningful changes or user feedback.

• Course organizationIs the course organized into meaningful modules or weeks using the built-in eLC structure?
• Page and module titlesDo pages, modules, assignments, and activities have descriptive titles?
• HeadingsDo eLC pages use headings that form a logical outline?
• LinksDoes each link describe its destination or action?
• Uploaded filesHave Word documents, PDFs, slides, and other uploaded files been reviewed for accessibility?
• Videos and audioDo videos have accurate captions, and does audio-only content have a transcript?
• Assignments and discussionsAre instructions clear, structured, and understandable without relying only on visual formatting?
• Quizzes and formsDo fields and questions have clear labels, instructions, and accessible error feedback?
• Third-party toolsHave required course tools and integrations been reviewed for keyboard access, screen reader support, and known barriers?

• Page structureDoes each page use one descriptive title and a logical heading hierarchy?
• ImagesDo meaningful images have appropriate text alternatives, with decorative images hidden from assistive technology?
• Links and buttonsAre links and buttons labeled clearly and used for the correct purpose?
• FormsDo fields have programmatic labels, helpful instructions, and accessible error messages?
• Color and contrastDoes content meet contrast requirements without relying on color alone?
• Keyboard accessCan every interactive element be reached and operated with a keyboard?
• NavigationCan people bypass repeated content and find information in more than one way?
• Text enlargementDoes content remain readable and usable when text is enlarged?
• Mobile accessDoes the page work across device sizes and orientations?
• Dynamic contentAre status messages, dialogs, menus, and other updates available to assistive technology?

• Document titleDoes the document have a meaningful title that identifies its purpose?
• Headings and stylesAre built-in styles used to create a logical heading structure?
• ListsAre built-in numbered and bulleted lists used for list content?
• ImagesDo meaningful images have useful alternative text, with decorative images marked decorative?
• TablesAre tables used only for data, with a simple structure and identified headers?
• Color and contrastIs information available without color alone, with sufficient text contrast?
• LinksDoes the linked text describe the destination or action?
• Reading orderDoes the content follow a logical reading order?
• Accessibility reviewHas the built-in accessibility checker been used, followed by a manual review?

• Accessible sourceWas the PDF created from an accessible source document whenever possible?
• Document propertiesAre the title and document language defined?
• TagsDoes the PDF have a complete, meaningful tag structure?
• Reading orderDo the tag order and visual reading order follow a logical sequence?
• ImagesDo meaningful figures have alternative text, with decorative content marked as artifacts?
• Lists and tablesAre lists and data tables tagged with the correct structure and headers?
• Links and form fieldsAre links descriptive and form fields labeled with useful names or tooltips?
• Scanned contentHas optical character recognition been applied, with the resulting text checked for accuracy?
• Accessibility reviewHas the PDF been checked in Adobe Acrobat Pro and reviewed manually with appropriate assistive technology?

• Slide layoutsAre built-in layouts used instead of manually positioned text boxes?
• Slide titlesDoes every slide have a unique, descriptive title?
• Reading orderDoes each slide have a logical reading order?
• Images and chartsDo meaningful visuals have text alternatives or an equivalent explanation?
• Lists and tablesAre built-in list structures and simple tables with headers used?
• Color and contrastIs text readable, with sufficient contrast and meaning that does not depend on color alone?
• Text sizeIs text large enough to read in the presentation setting without overcrowding the slide?
• Motion and flashingAre animations limited, and is flashing content avoided?
• Accessibility reviewHas the built-in accessibility checker been used, followed by a manual reading-order and content review?
• Recordings and exportsIf the presentation is recorded or exported, have captions and the accessibility of the new format been reviewed?

• Live captionsAre captions available and enabled for live classes, meetings, and events?
• Shared materialsAre slides, documents, links, and other materials accessible before they are shared?
• Screen sharingIs shared content readable, sufficiently contrasted, and described aloud when needed?
• Participation optionsCan people participate without relying on only speech, video, chat, or another single method?
• Visual descriptionsIs important visual information described for people who cannot see the shared screen?
• RecordingsAre recordings captioned, and are transcripts corrected before distribution?
• Breakout roomsAre instructions and materials for breakout activities clear and available in an accessible format?

• Accessibility informationHas the vendor provided current accessibility documentation, such as an Accessibility Conformance Report?
• Keyboard accessCan all required tasks be completed using a keyboard?
• Names and instructionsDo controls, fields, and instructions have clear, programmatic labels?
• Zoom and reflowDoes content remain readable and usable when enlarged or viewed on a smaller screen?
• Media alternativesAre captions, transcripts, and descriptions available for required media?
• Known barriersHave known barriers and their effects on required tasks been documented and communicated?
• Accessible alternativeIs there an effective alternative when the primary tool creates a barrier that cannot be removed immediately?

Prioritize and revisit

Accessibility work may involve more content than can be reviewed at once. Use impact, frequency, and audience needs to plan the work.

1. Respond to active barriers first. Address an identified barrier affecting someone who needs the content now.
2. Prioritize current, required, and frequently used content. Start with materials central to learning, employment, services, and public information.
3. Build accessibility into new work. Use the checkpoints while content is still easy to change.
4. Improve content when it is reused or revised. A routine update is an opportunity to remove existing barriers.
5. Recheck after changes. New content, technology updates, and user feedback can introduce or reveal barriers.