At a glance
A useful remediation handoff identifies the exact source, the reader’s task, required outputs and acceptance evidence. Include the authored file when available and state any signature, layout or form constraints. Do not ask a supplier to infer the current version or treat a checker pass as the full acceptance criterion.
A source and its requirements travel together.
| Item | Example | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Source revision | policy-v3.pdf + digest | Fix the intended file |
| Authored source | policy-v3.docx | Correct recurring source structure |
| Required outputs | Reviewed HTML and tagged PDF | Agree on deliverables |
| Layout constraint | Signed original retained | Avoid unsupported changes |
| Acceptance evidence | Table and reading-order review | Check actual reader tasks |
Scroll sideways to see all columns. Use arrow keys when the table is focused.
Freeze the intended source
Keep the uploaded original and identify it with a stable filename, byte digest and collection date. Include page counts and any unknown-count explanation. If the source owner has a newer export, reconcile that version before assigning work.
An editable authored document can be more useful than a flattened PDF. Provide the relevant authoring file and template through an authorized channel, with fonts or linked assets where necessary. Avoid sending unrelated customer or personnel records as part of a broad folder dump.
- Confirm the current revision with its owner.
- Record source identity and publication locations.
- Include authorized authored files and related assets.
- List known defects with page or element locations.
Describe the result the reader needs
State whether the project needs a tagged PDF, an HTML alternative, a rebuilt PDF or an original-layout result. These paths can have different eligibility and review constraints. Signed documents and interactive forms need specific decisions; a visual re-export is not automatically a safe replacement.
Describe important tasks: navigating a long policy, understanding data, completing and submitting a form, or locating a drawing legend. Name languages, long descriptions and instructions that must survive conversion. Say which team can resolve ambiguities in the content.
- Required output formats and intended readers.
- Layout, signature and form-behavior constraints.
- Supported review environment and assistive technologies.
- Acceptance checks, evidence and correction responsibilities.
Bind review to the delivered revision
Ask for an output version and a record of the actual checks performed. Automated results, manual semantic review and assistive-technology tests serve different purposes. A generic completed label or screenshot of a checker cannot establish all three.
If either source or output changes during correction, invalidate the relevant earlier review and repeat affected checks. The handoff template keeps deliverables, review scope and unresolved findings together so an approval does not become detached from the file it covered.
Sources and scope
Methods, worksheets and illustrative examples are DocAccessible editorial contributions. These references support the technical or product details described above. W3C techniques are informative guidance; they are not a certification scheme.
- DocAccessible remediation options
The different output paths and their review requirements.
- W3C: evaluating web accessibility
Automated tools and knowledgeable human evaluation serve different roles.
- W3C PDF3: reading and tab order
The relationship between PDF tag order, reading sequence and interactive elements.
Written by the DocAccessible team under our editorial policy. Suggest a correction if a source or product detail needs updating.