Developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are a set of recommendations for digital accessibility to ensure all people can access Web content (W3C, 2023). There are four core principles of WCAG: Perceivable, which concerns content presentation; Operable, which ensures navigability; Understandable, meaning the content is easy to comprehend; and Robust, which allows content to be interpreted by assistive technologies. To analyze the problem of document accessibility and inadequate training to assess accessibility, I will focus on the Operable and Understandable principles of the WCAG as I feel these are the most important for student document accessibility.

Operable

The Operable principle refers to how a piece of content on the Web functions (W3C, 2023). It includes accessibility recommendations for user input, content and interface timing, general navigation, and avoiding adverse physical reactions like seizures. For document accessibility, the Operable principle allows individuals to easily navigate text or fillable components regardless of whether they use assistive technology.

The documents and forms available to students in my workplace do not follow the Operable principle. The forms do not include tagged headings, meaning they are not navigable for an individual with a screen reader. A screen reader would likely read the text left to right and not identify the changes in sections or content. This would be problematic for the forms where only some fields are to be filled by students, especially if the fields are on different pages across the document. Due to this lack of definition of the fillable areas, students would not be able to skip to the sections that are specific to them. The one positive aspect of the forms is that they are machine-readable, though this is an unacceptable minimum.

Understandable

The Understandable principle builds upon Operable, ensuring that the information presented in a piece of Web content and the operation of this content makes sense (W3C, 2023). In other words, Web content must include clear language and have predictable and consistent functionality. Additionally, places for user input should be identified and clearly explained. The Understandable principle is crucial for document accessibility, especially for documents that include sensitive information or require contractual signatures. An individual should have at least a general understanding of the presented information or the required task within a document.

The forms and documents provided to students can be difficult to understand. There is a short and vague explanation of the form in small font at the top of the page. The result is many questions from students asking for clarification about what is needed or which form to use. Staff are often frustrated with students and assume they did not read the document properly, but if I were viewing one of the forms for the first time, I would be confused, too. When students first open a document, they are usually met with a sea of blue indicating the fillable areas. The font size used to explain what should be written in each field is small. It can be overwhelming for a student to navigate due to the blank space.

Review of the Literature

The literature review I conducted on document accessibility in higher education included consideration of the WCAG principles outlined above. Interestingly, limited publications focused on administrative documentation that students use. However, the main results of the studies on libraries and academic publishers can be used in a higher education workplace context.

PDFs are one of the most common document formats in schools, academic publishing, and corporate offices (Chee & Weaver, 2022). However, the accessibility standards for PDFs are not widely known, resulting in the publication and distribution of inaccessible documents (Acosta-Vargas et al., 2017; Nganji, 2018). This is especially problematic in higher education, where the information students need is found online and in digital document files. Rather than making documents accessible in the first place, students have an unfair responsibility of seeking an accessible document when needed (Arzola, 2015; Nganji, 2018).

Unfortunately, many people are unaware of how to make a document universally accessible (Arzola, 2015; Kasdorf, 2018). This stems from a lack of appropriate training in the workplace, weak relationships with stakeholders, a lack of resources such as employees and access to applications like Adobe Acrobat Pro, and the time and money needed to learn and execute accessibility protocols (Chee & Weaver, 2022; Kasdorf, 2018). These barriers are not expected to be overcome anytime soon due to the structure of current accessibility protocols (Kasdorf, 2018); pivoting is difficult when flaws are engrained in a workflow.

Ideally, staff and faculty within an academic institution would receive formal training as the primary solution to document accessibility issues. They would learn about the WCAG 2.0 principles and the recommended processes for accessibility (Acosta-Vargas et al., 2017; Arzola, 2015; Kasdorf, 2018), plus receive access to Adobe Acrobat Pro to apply these processes (Chee & Weaver, 2022; Power, 2024). One of the most important processes for document accessibility is “tagging” headings, which creates a defined and consistent structure for screen readers to navigate (Acosta-Vargas et al., 2017; Nganji, 2018; Power, 2024). Additionally, it allows individuals with and without screen readers to skip or return to sections of a document without having to scroll or restart their reading (Kasdorf, 2018; Power, 2024).

Based on the literature, my main recommendation for workplaces would be to improve the breadth and depth of accessibility training. As I explained at the start of this paper, I received minimal accessibility training; I completed basic AODA modules that did not align with my responsibilities. I have spoken to others in my office who agree that better accessibility training should be introduced. For example, one of my colleagues who deals with policy and academic affairs explained that they could see many accessibility issues with the form used when a thesis student wishes to change their supervisor. However, they are not confident in making any changes due to a lack of training, and no one else in the office can assist.

Additionally, I learned that our relationship with internal stakeholders, such as the office of accessibility, is rather weak, so we do not have a reliable contact should any questions arise. Having reliable, direct contact with an accessibility officer when we notice accessibility issues in our student forms and documents, for example, would allow us to solve problems quickly.

Of course, limited funding and resources are major barriers to implementation. We are understaffed, to which many higher education institutions can attest. We cannot hire an accessibility expert whose job is to address these problems I have outlined. Introducing new training would take time due to the number of personnel needed to develop and approve the content. Though it will not be easy, improved training is a necessary step for all higher education employees to consider.

In place of a full training session, I found a few online resources that could benefit staff and encourage accessibility in their work. Both the University of Oxford (Centre for Teaching and Learning, n.d.) and the University of Waterloo (Voichita et al., 2022) have created resources specific to document accessibility in a higher education context. While they are geared towards teaching and learning in higher education, they could be relevant workplace resources. The Centre for Teaching and Learning (n.d.) provides a condensed table of key accessibility problems and how to fix them, including defining the first row and column in your tables, adding alternative text to images, and saving your PDFs to ensure bookmarks are created for each heading. Voichita et al. (2022) outline best practices, such as ensuring that text is placed in a meaningful order for screen readers. They also provide an excellent example of a PDF workflow, including training, tagging, feeding PDFs through a screen reader, and auditing any issues.

Cited in Power (2024), an accessibility infographic produced by Geissmann (2024) is another detailed resource that could be used in the workplace. One approach I think is useful is ensuring that any links are descriptive and avoiding the use of “click here” or related phrases. Additionally, color should not change the meaning of a task or function. For example, one can include an icon that indicates an error in a field rather than only highlighting text in red (Geissmann, 2024).