Accessibility and Inclusive Content

Inclusive Language Review

Identify unnecessary assumptions, stereotypes, exclusionary framing, imprecise identity language, euphemism, blame, and avoidable barriers in content.

Free editable Markdown · Editors, inclusion reviewers, and communications teams · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Review context

Content and version: [Page or file]
Primary audience: [Roles, contexts, and diversity]
Purpose and consequence: [What the content influences]
People or groups mentioned: [Exact terms]
Source of identity details: [Self-identification, record, reporting]
Current guidance consulted: [Community/organizational source and date]
Reviewer perspectives: [Relevant experience]
High-impact sections: [Eligibility, health, rights, safety, policy, other]

Language finding

Current wording: [Exact passage]
Finding type: [Assumption, stereotype, label, metaphor, blame, omission]
Why it matters: [Accuracy, agency, access, harm, or comprehension]
Evidence or preference: [Source]
Proposed revision: [Exact wording]
Meaning preserved: [Necessary factual distinction]
Additional voice needed: [Person or community perspective]
Locale implication: [Translation or cultural review]

Final checks

Reader instructions do not assume unnecessary resources or relationships.
Identity is included only when relevant and accurately sourced.
Names, pronouns, and group terms reflect current preferences.
Metaphors do not stigmatize identity or health.
Actors and responsibility remain clear.
Examples distribute expertise and agency thoughtfully.
Affected perspectives are not tokenized or exposed without consent.
Localized versions receive context-specific review.

How to use this template

Define audience, context, decision, identities mentioned, and relevant current guidance.
Highlight assumptions about people, resources, roles, access, knowledge, and behavior.
Review identity terms, agency, blame, metaphors, examples, quotations, and imagery.
Consult named people, affected perspectives, and qualified reviewers as appropriate.
Approve precise revisions, record unresolved preferences, and plan multilingual review.

Find assumptions in the reader model

Review who the content imagines as normal: family structure, gender, age, ability, language, education, income, housing, employment, technology, location, or legal status. Ask whether those assumptions are necessary to the task. “Ask your spouse to sign” may exclude other authorized arrangements; “simply upload” may dismiss access barriers. Replace assumptions with precise eligibility or role language while preserving conditions that genuinely matter.

Describe people accurately and relevantly

Mention identity only when it contributes necessary context, and use the level of specificity supported by the source. Confirm names, pronouns, group terms, capitalization, and person-first or identity-first preferences where possible. Avoid metaphors that use disability, mental health, age, nationality, or poverty as shorthand for failure. Replace euphemisms that hide responsibility with clear actors and actions. Avoid labels that turn a temporary situation or one behavior into a person's entire identity.

Review framing and participation

Check who has agency, expertise, and voice, and who appears only as a problem or recipient. Verify that examples and images do not reproduce a stereotype through repeated roles. Include affected perspectives when content recommends decisions about a group, while avoiding tokenism or extracting personal stories without consent. Record disagreements and editorial rationale. Recheck translated versions because grammar, formality, identity terms, and social meaning do not transfer mechanically.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: online appointment instructions

Care Junction is an invented booking service and no healthcare instruction is implied.

Current wording: “Have your wife complete the family contact field.”
Finding: The phrase assumes gender, marriage, and who performs administrative work.
Revision: “If you choose to add a family contact, enter the name of the person you authorize.”
Meaning preserved: The fictional field remains optional and records an authorized contact rather than any relative automatically.
Follow-up: Product review confirms the form label and data handling match the revised instruction.

Frequently asked questions

Is there one permanent list of approved terms?

No. Meaning and preferences change across people, communities, regions, and contexts. Maintain guidance, but verify specific and current use.

Should identity always be omitted?

No. Identity can be essential to accuracy, representation, eligibility, or lived experience. Include it responsibly when relevant.

What if individual and organizational preferences differ?

Prioritize how a named person identifies themselves, while documenting editorial and legal context. Avoid imposing a generic rule without discussion.

Can AI perform this review?

It may flag possible patterns, but human reviewers must understand context, affected communities, false positives, privacy, and final editorial responsibility.