Launched this week
PDF Accessibility Checker by WebYes
Find PDF accessibility issues for free, with fix guidance
284 followers
Find PDF accessibility issues for free, with fix guidance
284 followers
Find issues that can make your PDFs difficult for people with disabilities to read or use, including missing image descriptions and problems with headings. See affected content highlighted on the page, review issues by severity, and get instructions on how to fix them. The checker also flags what needs human review. Upload PDFs up to 50 MB or paste a public link. Completely free, with no sign-up, no email required, and no files stored. Checks against WCAG 2.1 AA and PDF/UA.
Free
Launch Team
Dropbox SignSimple, secure eSignatures for the way your team works.
Promoted
The highlighted finding on the page is the part that would actually change how I use a checker. A severity list alone usually gets skimmed, but seeing the exact content in context makes it clear what to fix first. For exported docs, the tricky part is usually reading order and tagged structure, not just missing alt text — does the guidance distinguish those cases, or treat them the same way?
Thanks @jcbuilds , that's exactly why we built the highlighting: a list of rule names doesn't tell you where to start, but seeing the problem on the page does.
And yes, the checker treats these as separate problems, with dedicated guidance for each:
Missing or poor alt text: Images with no alt text or non-descriptive text (like "image" or a file name) get their own finding, highlighted directly on the page.
Tagged structure: These are listed under a "Structure & tagging" group (e.g., untagged documents, content outside the tag tree, broken hierarchies, skipped heading levels, and tables missing header cells). While these backend structural issues don't have an on-page visual preview, each comes with its own explanation and step-by-step "How to fix" guidance.
Reading order: Because automated tools can't reliably judge logical flow, reading order isn't visually previewed. Instead, the report flags the pages involved as a reminder for manual verification, so you can check how a screen reader would navigate them.
So for an exported document, you'd typically see structural problems listed clearly alongside visual items like alt text, rather than grouped into one generic "accessibility issue."
We built this tool after seeing the same thing again and again. Teams put real effort into making their websites accessible, and then the PDFs linked from those sites (annual reports, brochures, application forms, policy documents) quietly shut people out. Someone using a screen reader opens one and gets lost in an unstructured jumble of text. Checking PDFs properly has usually meant expensive software or hours of manual work, so most teams never get around to it.
PDF Accessibility Checker removes that barrier. It's completely free, with no sign-up and no email required, and your PDF isn't stored. Just upload a file or paste a public link, right in your browser. It runs every machine-verifiable check in WCAG (Level A and AA) and PDF/UA (ISO 14289). That covers structure (reading order, heading nesting, lists and table headers), content (image alt text, document language, title, bookmarks, font embedding) and interaction (text contrast, form field labels, link descriptions and tab order).
What I love most is how easy the results are to act on. Issues are ranked from critical to minor, and you can filter by severity to focus on what matters first. Click any issue and it takes you straight to the problem, highlighted on your PDF. Each finding comes with clear guidance tied to the exact WCAG or PDF/UA rule it relates to. Content editors, marketers, developers and accessibility specialists can all understand it and know what to do next.
If you publish PDFs on your website, give it a try with one of your own documents. It's a quick, honest way to see whether your PDFs are as accessible as the rest of your site, and a helpful step towards ADA and Section 508 readiness. We'd genuinely love your feedback!
Highlighting the issue directly on the page is a great touch. An error report is much easier to act on when you can see exactly what it’s referring to. Congrats on the launch!
@marianna_tymchuk Thank you! That’s exactly what we wanted to make easier: seeing the issue in context so you can get on with fixing it. Appreciate the support :)
@vinoop_thayatt Thank you for your support!
A PDF can look perfectly readable and still be difficult to navigate with assistive technology. Happy to see more attention going into this. Congrats, WebYes team!
@yuliia_savchuk Absolutely! There’s a lot that appearance alone won’t tell you about a PDF’s accessibility. Thanks for highlighting that and for the support
Congratulations on the launch!
@shreya_r_nambiar Thank you!
A list of human checks is useful alongside the automatic findings. An image can have alt text and still explain very little.
@oleksii_sekundant Exactly! Checking that alt text exists is only the starting point. The manual checks help you review whether it actually conveys the image’s meaning. Thanks for highlighting that