Public Beta · Standards-informed accessibility screening

Accessibility Standards

Clear guidance on WCAG 2.2, PDF/UA, Matterhorn checkpoints, privacy expectations, and the difference between automated screening and professional accessibility certification.

Access Lens AI performs automated PDF structure analysis, standards-informed screening, and AI-assisted report generation to help teams surface common barriers and plan remediation. Access Lens AI provides automated accessibility screening only and does not provide legal advice, official accessibility certification, or professional manual accessibility reviews.

Features, report presentation, scoring models, and automated screening workflows may evolve during active platform improvement.

Screen a PDF Why accessibility matters

What the platform helps screen

WCAG-informed checks for contrast, alt text, headings, links, and readability.

PDF/UA-informed structural checks for tags, tables, forms, lists, and reading order.

Severity-ranked issue lists with page references and plain-language remediation guidance.

Public beta workflows designed for independent review before compliance or legal decisions.

Public beta: Public Beta — Results should be independently reviewed before compliance or legal decisions.

Standards overview

The standards behind accessible PDFs

Accessible PDFs need both human-centered usability and machine-readable document structure. These standards and concepts explain what teams usually evaluate when they prepare a PDF for broad public access.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

WCAG 2.2

WCAG is internationally recognized accessibility guidance for making digital content easier for people with disabilities to perceive, understand, navigate, and use.

Levels A, AA, and AAA describe increasing accessibility expectations.
Most organizations target WCAG 2.2 AA.
Common PDF-related checks include contrast, alt text, headings, navigation, readability, and assistive technology compatibility.
WCAG-informed checks help teams prioritize practical remediation work without treating automation as a complete conformance assessment.
Automated screening may help surface potential WCAG-related issues, but manual testing and expert review remain important.

PDF accessibility structure

PDF/UA (ISO 14289-1)

PDF/UA focuses on whether PDF structure can be interpreted correctly by assistive technology.

PDF/UA-informed structural checks look at tags, semantic reading order, headings, tables, lists, and form structure.
A well-structured PDF helps screen readers understand what each piece of content is and where it belongs.
Access Lens AI performs PDF/UA-informed structural screening checks as part of automated accessibility analysis.
A screening report is not official PDF/UA certification.

PDF accessibility checkpoints

Matterhorn Protocol

The Matterhorn Protocol is a reference checkpoint framework commonly used in PDF accessibility workflows and educational accessibility review contexts (PDF Association / Matterhorn Protocol).

The 136 Matterhorn checkpoints are useful educational context for understanding PDF structure, tags, metadata, forms, tables, and annotations (PDF Association / Matterhorn Protocol).
Matterhorn concepts help remediation teams speak a common language about structural validation methodology.
They are commonly used as PDF accessibility validation concepts, not as a replacement for expert review.

Standards-based validation reference

veraPDF

veraPDF is an open-source PDF validation tool commonly referenced in standards-based PDF/UA validation discussions.

It is helpful for understanding standards-based PDF validation and PDF/UA concepts.
Access Lens AI may reference standards-informed PDF/UA concepts inspired by broader accessibility validation ecosystems.
This does not imply identical output or official certification.

Accessibility risk context

ADA Title III

ADA Title III is part of the United States digital accessibility legal landscape for public-facing services, including many documents made available online.

Accessible PDFs can reduce barriers for customers, applicants, students, patients, and members of the public.
Automated accessibility screening may help organizations identify potential accessibility risks earlier in document review workflows.
Access Lens AI does not provide legal advice or legal compliance certification.

Privacy and document handling

GDPR + LFPDPPP

Privacy and data protection matter when teams upload confidential PDFs for accessibility screening.

Uploaded PDFs are automatically deleted shortly after processing or after temporary operational retention needs are complete.
Generated reports are retained separately in account history so teams can revisit findings.
Uploaded PDFs are not used to train AI systems.
Enterprise Workflows options may include configurable retention policies and optional rapid deletion workflows.

Legal and operational clarity

Accessibility screening vs. manual review

Automated accessibility screening is useful because it quickly surfaces many common issues and gives teams a practical remediation starting point. It is not the same as a professional manual accessibility review, screen reader test, or official conformance assessment.

Automated screening helps teams

Helps surface common accessibility issues early.
Helps teams prioritize remediation work.
Provides standards-informed guidance for document owners.
Creates a shareable record of findings and recommended next steps.

Manual review may still include

Assistive technology testing with screen readers and keyboard workflows.
Expert review of reading order, link purpose, and real user experience.
Judgment about whether alt text is meaningful for the document context.
Professional certification or formal conformance assessment when required.

Automated accessibility screening is a helpful starting point, but it is not a substitute for professional accessibility reviews, screen reader testing, legal review, or official conformance certification. Clean automated screening results do not guarantee accessibility or compliance. Manual testing, assistive technology review, and professional accessibility judgment may still be necessary before making compliance or legal claims.

Technical glossary

Plain-English accessibility terms

Use this glossary to align document owners, designers, legal teams, and remediation vendors around common PDF accessibility language.

Standards-based PDF validation

A structured way to evaluate a PDF against recognized accessibility expectations instead of relying only on visual appearance.

ISO 14289-1 (PDF/UA-1)

The ISO standard commonly known as PDF/UA-1, focused on accessibility requirements for tagged PDF documents.

WCAG 2.2

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.2, widely used for digital accessibility goals across websites, apps, and documents.

Levels A, AA & AAA

WCAG conformance levels. Level AA is the most common target for organizations because it balances strong accessibility coverage with practical implementation.

PDF/UA

A PDF accessibility standard that focuses on tags, structure, reading order, and assistive technology compatibility.

Matterhorn checkpoints

A PDF Association reference framework used to describe common structural and semantic issues in PDF documents.

veraPDF

An open-source PDF validation tool commonly referenced for PDF/UA conformance and standards-based PDF structure validation.

ADA Title III

A United States accessibility law context relevant to many public-facing digital services and documents.

GDPR + LFPDPPP

Privacy and data protection frameworks relevant to responsible handling of uploaded files, reports, and account data.

Digital document accessibility screening

Automated review that helps identify common accessibility barriers in PDFs and similar digital documents.

WCAG-informed accessibility screening

Automated checks and guidance mapped to WCAG accessibility concepts, while recognizing that manual review may still be needed.

PDF/UA-informed structural checks

Review of PDF tags, headings, tables, lists, annotations, and reading structure using PDF/UA accessibility concepts.

Standards-based PDF accessibility validation

A standards-aligned review process that evaluates whether a PDF has accessibility structure that assistive technology can use.

Severity-ranked issue list

A prioritized list that separates higher-risk findings from minor advisories and manual-review items.

Page references

Location details that help remediation teams find a reported issue in the document.

Plain-language remediation guidance

Fix recommendations written for document owners, designers, and accessibility teams without requiring deep technical knowledge.

Contrast ratio

A numeric comparison between foreground and background colors used to evaluate whether text is readable enough for many users.

Accessible color contrast

Color combinations that provide enough visual separation for low-vision users and people reading in difficult lighting conditions.

Suggested accessible contrast colors

Example color values that can help design teams adjust low-contrast text or interface elements while preserving brand intent.

Downloadable screening report

A shareable PDF report summarizing screening results, issue locations, remediation guidance, and manual-review recommendations.

Confidential document trust

Privacy-aware screening for sensitive PDFs

Teams often screen contracts, policies, statements, manuals, and other confidential documents. Access Lens AI keeps original uploaded PDFs temporary while retaining generated reports separately for account history.

Uploaded PDFs are automatically deleted shortly after processing or after temporary operational retention needs are complete.

Generated accessibility screening reports and limited screening metadata may remain associated with account history separately.

Uploaded PDFs are not used to train AI systems.

Enterprise Workflows options can include configurable retention policies.

Standards-informed remediation

Turn accessibility terminology into an actionable PDF screening report.

Upload a PDF to get a downloadable screening report with severity-ranked findings, page references, and plain-language remediation guidance.

Start a screening Review privacy practices