Designing A Delivery-First PDF Accessibility Strategy For Government Digital Teams

Introduction

Accessibility compliance is rarely a question of intent. Most government digital teams already know what they need to achieve. The real challenge lies elsewhere, translating regulatory requirements into an execution model that is scalable, defensible, and achievable within real-world constraints.

This challenge becomes especially pronounced when accessibility initiatives extend beyond websites and into the complex ecosystem of PDFs. Policy documents, forms, reports, and public notices are often treated as supporting assets, but in practice, they are critical touchpoints reused across dozens of sites, departments, and audiences. When these documents fail accessibility standards, the risk is not just technical; it is legal, operational, and reputational.

This is the story of how one county digital team moved from accessibility ambiguity to delivery confidence by shifting the conversation away from tools and toward execution.

The Hidden Complexity Behind “Just Make The PDFs ADA-Compliant”

At first glance, PDF accessibility appears deceptively straightforward. Standards exist. Tools promise automation. Compliance checkers generate reports. The assumption is that once a tool is selected, the rest becomes an operational task.

In reality, PDF accessibility introduces a unique set of delivery challenges, especially for government organizations managing large, distributed digital estates. PDFs are rarely uniform. Some are simple, text-heavy policy documents. Others include tables, forms, charts, or scanned content. Many are reused across multiple websites and departments, often without centralized ownership.

In this engagement, the mandate was clear: ensure PDFs met ADA requirements, aligned with PDF/UA and WCAG standards, within a fixed compliance timeline. What was not clear was how to achieve this safely at scale.

When The Outcome Is Clear, But The Path Isn’t

The county team entered the engagement with clarity on what needed to be done, but not on how to do it. Accessibility was a non-negotiable requirement, driven by compliance obligations and a hard deadline. However, several uncertainties quickly surfaced.

The first challenge was prioritization. Accessibility initiatives for websites and PDFs were being discussed in parallel, and priorities between the two shifted frequently. While PDFs were recognized as important, they were often deprioritized due to the perceived complexity and unknown effort involved.

The second challenge was tooling. Multiple remediation tools and vendors were being evaluated, each with different pricing models, subscription structures, and claimed capabilities. Conversations repeatedly circled around which tool would be “best,” without addressing how remediation would actually be executed across thousands of documents.

The third challenge was scale. The total number of PDFs across more than fifty sites was not immediately known. Neither was the variability in document complexity. Without this clarity, estimating effort, timelines, or delivery risk was nearly impossible.

Left unresolved, these uncertainties posed serious consequences. Scope creep, tool lock-in, and unclear workflows threatened the county’s ability to meet its compliance deadline. What appeared to be a tooling decision was, in reality, a delivery risk.

Why Tool-First Accessibility Conversations Stall Delivery

Accessibility discussions often stall when they start with tools instead of workflows. Tools can identify issues, but they do not define how remediation should be prioritized, validated, or sustained over time. In compliance-driven environments, this gap can lead to a false sense of progress, reports are generated, but outcomes fall short.

In this case, focusing solely on tool selection risked locking the client into a solution without a clear understanding of whether it could support the full range of document types, volumes, and validation requirements. Worse, it risked producing outputs that appeared compliant but failed under real accessibility audits.

Recognizing this, the engagement deliberately shifted direction.

Reframing The Problem: From “Which Tool?” To “How Do We Deliver This Safely?”

Rather than forcing an early tooling decision, the team reframed the problem as a delivery challenge. The key question became: How do we design a remediation approach that guarantees compliant outcomes, regardless of the tool used?

This shift required early involvement from both Engineering and Delivery. Engineering assessed feasibility, edge cases, and validation requirements. Delivery focused on workflow clarity, dependency management, and execution predictability. Together, they worked to reduce downstream risk before a contract was even signed.

The result was a shared understanding that accessibility success depended on process clarity first, tooling second.

Exploring The Landscape Without Lock-In

With this mindset, the Axelerant team explored multiple remediation approaches and tools, openly discussing trade-offs around cost, scalability, and operational effort. Instead of presenting a single “recommended” platform, the team focused on helping the client understand how different tools would fit into a broader execution model.

This approach acknowledged an important reality: tool selection alone does not ensure compliance. Without a defined remediation workflow, even the most advanced tool can produce inconsistent or incomplete results. Conversely, a strong process can adapt to different tools while maintaining quality and compliance.

By keeping the conversation tool-agnostic, the team removed pressure from the decision-making process and redirected focus toward outcomes.

The Remediation Package: Making Accessibility Executable

The turning point in the engagement came with the introduction of a structured remediation approach, referred to internally as a Remediation Package.

Rather than treating all PDFs as equal, the team introduced categorization based on complexity. Documents were grouped into categories ranging from simple, text-based files to highly complex or scanned documents requiring OCR and advanced tagging. This categorization was not merely technical; it became the foundation of the delivery workflow.

By defining remediation steps, validation requirements, and effort expectations for each category, the Remediation Package transformed accessibility from an abstract requirement into an executable plan. It reduced ambiguity around scope, clarified prioritization, and made dependencies visible. Most importantly, it enabled realistic planning aligned with the county’s compliance timeline.

This structure also allowed the team to accommodate uncertainty. Even before the exact document volume was known, eventually estimated at nearly 23,000 PDFs, the workflow could scale as new information emerged.

Supporting The Client’s Choice, Not Selling A Tool

One of the most trust-building moments in the engagement was the explicit decision to support the client’s preferred remediation tools rather than pushing a proprietary solution. The team made it clear that delivery support would remain consistent regardless of the tool selected.

This removed vendor bias from the equation and reinforced the message that the partnership was focused on outcomes, not product adoption. It also gave the client confidence that they would not be locked into a solution that failed to meet their needs over time.

From a delivery perspective, this flexibility was only possible because the remediation workflow had already been defined. Tools became interchangeable components within a larger execution model, rather than the foundation of the strategy itself.

From Prolonged Pre-Sales To Confident Delivery Engagement

The pre-sales journey spanned nearly two months. Rather than viewing this as a delay, both teams recognized it as a necessary investment. The extended discovery period allowed risks to surface early, assumptions to be challenged, and execution details to be clarified before delivery began.

By the time the engagement transitioned into delivery, the county team had confidence not only in what would be done, but in how it would be executed. Scope, timelines, and responsibilities were no longer abstract. They were grounded in a workflow that had been collaboratively designed and validated.

What Government Digital Teams Can Learn From This Approach

This engagement highlights a lesson that extends far beyond PDF accessibility. Compliance initiatives succeed when they are framed as delivery challenges, not tooling exercises. Early involvement from engineering and delivery teams reduces risk. Clear workflows enable flexibility without sacrificing quality. And trust is built when partners prioritize outcomes over platforms.

For government digital teams navigating accessibility mandates, the message is clear: start with execution. Tools will follow.

Accessibility Is Not A Checkbox: It’s A Delivery Commitment

Accessibility compliance is not achieved through intention alone. It requires disciplined execution, thoughtful planning, and a willingness to confront complexity head-on. When approached as a delivery commitment rather than a technical task, accessibility initiatives become sustainable, scalable, and defensible.

By moving from ambiguity to execution, this engagement demonstrated how delivery-first thinking can transform compliance from a source of anxiety into a foundation for confidence.