Digital Accessibility Policies and Practices for PDF Forms | Five Eyes Report

The accessibility policies and digital transformation strategies of Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom showcase a unified commitment to creating inclusive, accessible public services, though they vary in their implementation specifics. Across all five nations, there is a clear preference for digital-first, web-native formats over static formats like PDFs. Each country’s approach reflects its unique governmental structure, priorities, and resource allocations, but collectively, these policies underscore a worldwide trend towards fully accessible, user-centred digital public services.

1. Core Accessibility Standards and Requirements

All five countries mandate compliance with WCAG standards as the foundational requirement for accessibility in digital content. The US, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada adhere to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, ensuring their digital services are accessible to people with disabilities. The UK also aligns with these standards, highlighting inclusivity in its government services.

• Australia: Each state mandates WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance, with Tasmania aiming for AAA compliance for specific content, indicating a strong commitment to inclusivity.
• New Zealand: The country applies WCAG 2.1 Level AA universally, reflecting accessibility as a human right under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• US: Section 508 standards require WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA compliance across all ICT for federal agencies, while M-23-22 extends the focus on digital-first design.
• Canada: The Digital Accessibility Toolkit enforces WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with specific resources like a PDF accessibility checklist to guide compliance.
• UK: The Government Digital Service (GDS) prioritises WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance, ensuring that GOV.UK services meet international accessibility expectations.

This shared adherence to WCAG standards reveals a global commitment to accessibility, with each country demonstrating an understanding that inclusivity is integral to public service delivery.

2. Differences in PDF Accessibility Requirements

Each country recognises the accessibility limitations of PDFs, although their policies toward PDF usage differ in strictness and flexibility.

• US: Section 508 permits PDFs with accessibility features but M-23-22 discourages them entirely when web-native alternatives are possible, advocating for digital-first formats like HTML.
• Australia: States such as NSW, Victoria, and Queensland discourage PDF use in favour of HTML, while others (Tasmania and Northern Territory) permit limited PDF use with accessibility measures.
• New Zealand: The guidelines discourage PDF use, urging content to be created directly for the web whenever feasible. This aligns closely with M-23-22’s strict preference for digital-native formats.
• Canada: The Canadian Digital Accessibility Toolkit allows PDFs if they meet accessibility criteria but clearly prefers HTML for forms due to superior accessibility features. A detailed PDF checklist ensures compliance when PDFs are unavoidable.
• UK: The UK GDS explicitly discourages PDF-based forms, citing accessibility and usability issues. Instead, GDS is developing a common form-building platform to support accessible, web-native forms.

Across the board, these policies reflect a shared understanding of PDFs’ limitations. The strictest policies are seen in the US (under M-23-22), New Zealand, and the UK, where there is a marked preference for HTML and web-native forms, highlighting a significant shift away from static, document-based formats.

3. Digital Transformation and Design Priorities

All five countries are embracing a digital-first approach, prioritising adaptable, user-centred digital services that maximise accessibility and usability.

• US: (M-23-22) Mandates a digital-first approach, requiring forms and services to be available across digital channels to maximise self-service usability. The emphasis on end-to-end digital processes reflects a commitment to fully digital information management.
• Australia: State-driven policies support digital transformation, with NSW, Victoria, and South Australia leading the move to HTML as the primary format. Flexibility across states allows for varied implementation based on regional needs.
• New Zealand: Promotes a digital-first strategy that mandates web-based design for forms and services. This includes a commitment to self-service and minimising in-person requirements, reflecting modern, user-centric design.
• Canada: The Digital Accessibility Toolkit advises HTML forms whenever feasible, advocating a digital-first mindset. Where PDFs are necessary, accessible versions are provided, though the preference remains for adaptable digital forms.
• UK: GDS champions a digital-first approach, prioritising HTML over document-based forms. The ongoing development of a form-building platform supports efficient and accessible online forms, showcasing the UK’s commitment to user-centred digital transformation.

The US, New Zealand, and the UK display a more centralised, uniform approach to digital transformation, while Australia’s state-driven flexibility allows for varied application across regions. Canada’s digital-first guidance aligns closely with these trends, reflecting a preference for adaptable HTML forms and enhanced user experience.

4. Common Themes and Gaps in PDF vs Digital Form Accessibility

Each country recognises that static formats like PDFs are inherently limited in accessibility, particularly for users with assistive technologies, and have prioritised web-native, adaptable content where possible.

• US: Section 508 requires PDFs to meet accessibility standards, but M-23-22’s preference for fully digital content addresses the inherent limitations of static formats in achieving comprehensive accessibility.
• Australia: Progressive states such as NSW and Victoria discourage PDFs, encouraging alternatives that align better with assistive technology compatibility and adaptability.
• New Zealand: The guidelines favour web-native content to minimise PDF use, supporting a digital-first experience that addresses PDFs’ accessibility gaps.
• Canada: Recognises PDF limitations and includes a detailed checklist for accessibility, while strongly recommending HTML for forms as a more inclusive format.
• UK: GDS findings highlight that document-based forms like PDFs are inaccessible and inefficient, reinforcing the need for web-native solutions and prioritising HTML forms.

The shared emphasis on alternatives to PDFs indicates a widespread understanding that accessible, user-friendly digital formats are better suited to meet the evolving expectations of today’s digital audiences.

5. Policy Summary and Practical Recommendations

The accessibility policies of the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK reveal a consistent trend: a preference for digital-first, web-native formats that enhance accessibility, adaptability, and user experience. Here’s how each country’s approach aligns:

• US: M-23-22 enforces a digital-first policy across federal agencies, discouraging PDFs and mandating fully digital formats to streamline accessibility and usability.
• Australia: State-driven policies reflect a general preference for HTML, with NSW, Victoria, and Queensland at the forefront of discouraging PDFs. Flexibility across regions allows each state to implement policies suited to its unique challenges.
• New Zealand: Adopts a centralised digital-first approach, prioritising content designed for the web to ensure accessibility and self-service options, closely aligning with M-23-22.
• Canada: Through the Digital Accessibility Toolkit, Canada advises using HTML forms whenever possible, with accessible PDF versions provided only as a secondary option.
• UK: GDS’s digital-first strategy prioritises HTML forms over PDFs, developing an accessible form-building platform to enhance efficiency and usability, aligning with M-23-22’s emphasis on user-centric digital transformation.

Together, these policies underscore a strong, global push towards prioritising adaptable, fully accessible digital formats. The US, New Zealand, and the UK show the most stringent stances against PDFs, while Australia and Canada display flexibility by allowing accessible PDF versions under specific conditions. Nonetheless, the consensus is clear: digital-first, web-native formats are essential for delivering accessible, efficient public services.

Conclusion

This comparative analysis highlights the alignment of accessibility goals across Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, particularly in the preference for HTML and web-native solutions over static formats like PDFs. The US and UK lead in enforcing strict digital-first policies, discouraging PDF use whenever possible, while New Zealand and Australia show a similar trajectory with slightly more flexibility in regional applications. Canada’s guidance aligns with this global trend, advising HTML for forms but supporting accessible PDF use in limited scenarios.

These findings support the whitepaper’s recommendation to prioritise digital-first, adaptable content formats over PDFs. By aligning with international best practices, public sector agencies can enhance accessibility, streamline service delivery, and meet the modern expectations of a diverse, digitally engaged public. Adopting fully digital, accessible formats ensures that government services are inclusive, efficient, and positioned to meet the challenges and expectations of the digital age.

References

Australian Government. (n.d.). Digital Inclusion Standard: Criterion 4 – Make It Accessible. Retrieved from https://www.digital.gov.au/policy/digital-experience/digital-inclusion-standard/dis-criterion-4-make-it-accessible

Australian Government. (n.d.). PDF (Portable Document Format). Style Manual. Retrieved from https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/content-types/pdf-portable-document-format

Government Digital Service. (2018, July 16). Why GOV.UK content should be published in HTML and not PDF. GOV.UK Blog. Retrieved from https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/16/why-gov-uk-content-should-be-published-in-html-and-not-pdf/

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

New South Wales Government. (n.d.). Accessibility and Inclusivity Toolkit: PDFs. Digital NSW. Retrieved from https://www.digital.nsw.gov.au/delivery/accessibility-and-inclusivity-toolkit/communication/pdfs

Victorian Government. (n.d.). Digital Accessibility Requirements. VIC Government. Retrieved from https://www.vic.gov.au/digital-accessibility-requirements

Victorian Government. (n.d.). Make Content Accessible. VIC Government. Retrieved from https://www.vic.gov.au/make-content-accessible

Queensland Government. (n.d.). Digital Accessibility in Queensland. For Government. Retrieved from https://www.forgov.qld.gov.au/service-delivery-and-community-support/design-public-services/digital-accessibility/digital-accessibility-in-queensland#:~:text=ICT%20accessibility%20standards%20and%20guidelines,-Web%20Content%20Accessibility&text=Queensland%20digital%20products%2C%20services%20and,apps)%20and%20digital%20content%20accessible.

Queensland Government. (n.d.). Make Digital Services Accessible. For Government. Retrieved from https://www.forgov.qld.gov.au/information-and-communication-technology/qgea-policies-standards-and-guidelines/digital-service-standard/make-digital-services-accessible

Western Australian Government. (n.d.). Accessibility and Inclusivity Standard. WA Government. Retrieved from https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/accessibility-and-inclusivity-standard

South Australian Government. (n.d.). Accessibility Guidelines for Government Websites. Accessibility SA. Retrieved from https://www.accessibility.sa.gov.au/introduction/accessibility-guidelines#:~:text=Meeting%20government%20accessibility%20requirements,WCAG%202.1%20as%20a%20minimum

South Australian Government. (n.d.). Online Accessibility Policy. Accessibility SA. Retrieved from https://www.accessibility.sa.gov.au/policy/south-australian-government/online-accessibility-policy

Northern Territory Government. (n.d.). Website Standards. Digital Territory. Retrieved from https://digitalterritory.nt.gov.au/digital-government/strategies-and-guidance/policies-standards-and-guidance/website-standards

Tasmanian Government. (n.d.). Accessibility Guidelines. Department of Premier and Cabinet. Retrieved from https://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/accessibility

New Zealand Government. (n.d.). Accessibility Standards and Guidance. Digital.govt.nz. Retrieved from https://www.digital.govt.nz/standards-and-guidance/design-and-ux/accessibility

U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.). Digital Accessibility Resources. Digital.gov. Retrieved from https://digital.gov/topics/accessibility/

U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.). PDF Accessibility Guidelines. Section 508.gov. Retrieved from https://www.section508.gov/create/pdfs/

U.S. Access Board. (n.d.). ICT Accessibility Standards and Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.access-board.gov/ict/

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2008). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Australian Government. (n.d.). Forms. Style Manual. Retrieved from https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/content-types/forms

New South Wales Government. (n.d.). Online Forms Design. Digital NSW. Retrieved from https://www.digital.nsw.gov.au/delivery/accessibility-and-inclusivity-toolkit/design/online-forms

Victorian Government. (n.d.). Design Forms. VIC Government. Retrieved from https://www.vic.gov.au/design-forms

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.). Delivering a Digital-First Public Experience. White House. Retrieved from https://digital.gov/resources/delivering-digital-first-public-experience/#what-does-it-mean-to-digitize-forms-and-services-2

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.). OMB Memorandum M-23-22: Delivering a Digital-First Public Experience. White House. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/ofcio/delivering-a-digital-first-public-experience/#IIIB

Government Digital Service. (2021, July 6). Making all forms on GOV.UK accessible, easy to use, and quick to process. GOV.UK Blog. Retrieved from https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2021/07/06/making-all-forms-on-gov-uk-accessible-easy-to-use-and-quick-to-process/

Government of Canada. (n.d.). PDF Accessibility Checklist. Accessibility Canada. Retrieved from https://a11y.canada.ca/en/pdf-accessibility-checklist/

Government of Canada. (n.d.). Find Out How to Make Accessible Digital Forms. Accessibility Canada. Retrieved from https://a11y.canada.ca/en/find-out-how-to-make-accessible-digital-forms/