# Accessible Content Review

Review content structure, language, links, media alternatives, instructions, and interaction guidance for barriers that can prevent people from completing a task.

## Usage note

Review the real rendered experience with relevant assistive technology and human expertise where possible. A content checklist can reveal barriers, but it does not certify technical conformance.

## How to use this template

1. Define the page task, user contexts, technologies, and scope of the content review.
2. Inspect headings, order, language, links, media alternatives, and non-visual meaning.
3. Complete key actions using keyboard, zoom, reflow, and relevant assistive technology.
4. Log each barrier with affected users, severity, owner, correction, and verification method.
5. Retest the fixed rendered version and record residual risks without claiming certification.

## Blank template

### Review context

- **Page, asset, and version:** [Enter]
- **Primary user task:** [Describe]
- **Review owner and date:** [Name, YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Content and interaction scope:** [List]
- **Devices and viewports:** [List]
- **Assistive technology and browser tested:** [Record exact combinations]
- **Known limitations of this review:** [Describe]
- **People with relevant lived expertise involved:** [Role/process or Not available]

### Structure and language

- [ ] Page title and H1 describe the content's purpose.
- [ ] Heading levels form a meaningful hierarchy without skipped meaning.
- [ ] Reading and focus order preserve the intended sequence.
- [ ] Lists and tables are used for real relationships, not visual layout.
- [ ] Instructions avoid relying only on color, shape, sound, or position.
- [ ] Sentences, terms, abbreviations, and labels suit the reader and task.
- [ ] Important conditions, risks, and choices are not hidden in dense text.
- [ ] Link text communicates its destination or action out of context.

### Images, audio, video, and data

- **Media inventory:** [List each item and purpose]
- [ ] Informative images have concise context-appropriate alternatives.
- [ ] Decorative images can be ignored by assistive technology.
- [ ] Functional images have alternatives that identify the action.
- [ ] Complex charts include their conclusion, relevant values, and source in accessible form.
- [ ] Prerecorded speech has accurate captions and an appropriate transcript.
- [ ] Important visual-only information is described where the task requires it.
- [ ] Flashing, autoplay, motion, and time behavior were escalated for technical review.

### Forms, instructions, and errors

- [ ] Labels, requirements, examples, and formats are available before input.
- [ ] Placeholder text is not the only label or instruction.
- [ ] Errors identify the affected field, explain the problem, and offer recovery.
- [ ] Status and success messages are communicated without relying on visual change alone.
- [ ] Time limits, fees, consequences, and irreversible actions are clear in advance.
- [ ] Help and contact alternatives are discoverable.
- **Keyboard and focus result:** [Record]
- **Zoom, reflow, and text-spacing result:** [Record]

### Issue and verification log

Duplicate for each barrier.

- **Issue ID and location:** [Enter]
- **Barrier observed:** [Describe]
- **People or tasks affected:** [Describe without assumptions]
- **Severity:** [Blocking / Serious / Moderate / Minor]
- **Owner type:** [Content / Design / Code / Media / Product]
- **Required correction:** [Describe expected outcome]
- **Fixed version:** [Enter]
- **Verification method and tester:** [Record]
- **Status:** [Open / Fixed / Accepted risk with owner]

### Signoff

- **Blocking issues remaining:** [List or None]
- **Technical accessibility review:** [Owner/status]
- **Content reviewer decision:** [Approve / Return / Conditional]
- **Final tested version and date:** [Enter]
- **Residual limitations:** [State accurately]
- **Next review trigger:** [Component change, new media, research, scheduled date]