By Nilesh Gadekar, Founder · Last reviewed .
0 of 15 review items checked. This checklist does not establish conformance.
Use the source file first
Apply heading styles, clear table structure, and meaningful image descriptions in the editable source. After exporting, review the actual PDF. Export settings and later edits can change the result.
Record the scope of your review
Keep the filename, version, review date, methods, coverage, and unresolved findings. A check mark in this page is a personal planning aid and is not saved or sent to DistrictProof.
Continue your review
See WCAG 2.1 and W3C WAI tutorials for technical context. Explore DistrictProof Docs or the deadline estimator.
Use the checklist in three passes
First review the source and purpose. Identify the intended task, content owner, current version, and best available original. Check whether a web page or maintained template would be a better long-term format. That prevents effort being spent on an obsolete copy or on a file that should be replaced through a district-approved process.
Next review structure and content. Work through headings, reading order, images, tables, links, scans, and form behavior as applicable. A simple text notice and a combined packet will need different attention. Keep questions about meaning or unreadable originals separate from technical findings.
Finally review the delivered and published versions. The returned file should match the agreed scope and be accepted by the district’s content owner. After posting, verify that the public location serves that accepted version. A later export or replacement may need another check.
A tagged menu still has confusing relationships
The document has tags, but a reader cannot tell which meal belongs to which day or whether a note applies to every item. The review needs to examine meaning and relationships rather than treating the presence of tags as a completed result. A better source layout may also make the next menu easier to produce.
Record findings so someone can act on them
For each issue, identify the file and version, the location or relevant content, the observed problem, and the next action. Assign content questions to the district owner and technical corrections to the responsible production team. Keep the evidence specific enough that another person can understand what was reviewed.
A checklist is a planning aid. A project review should state the methods, technical criteria, scope, date, and remaining limits. Explore DistrictProof’s quality model for how automated checks, human review, and publication verification fit together.
Technical references
The W3C page-structure tutorial, tables tutorial, and forms tutorial explain the underlying relationships and interactions in web content. For PDF work, the implementation must also be reviewed in the actual document format. Use WCAG 2.1 as the technical reference for an agreed WCAG review.