filehugger.comPDF Accessibility Checker
Check tags, document language, title, text coverage, outlines, form fields and link annotations before a deeper accessibility audit.
Analyse your own file
Choose a PDF file
Drop it here or browse this device
Your original file is analysed in this browser and is not uploaded. This tool has no AI or server-processing step.
What happens to the file
- Default processing
- Browser-only JavaScript, PDF.js, pdf-lib and Tesseract where the task needs them
- Accepted input
- Report contract
- File Intelligence JSON schema 1.0 plus a flattened CSV view
- Optional AI
- Not used by this tool
Sample PDF has selectable text and a title but intentionally lacks a tag tree and language marker. The report explains why those are separate findings.
How the result is calculated
PDF.js opens every page and exposes text, annotations, form fields, outline and document properties; byte-level markers check /StructTreeRoot, /Lang and /Title. The tool reports observable indicators without claiming PDF/UA or WCAG conformance.
The readiness score starts at 100. Missing tags or an image-only document is high impact; missing language/title and sparse reading structure are medium impact. Confidence rises when all pages parse successfully.
Supported and unsupported cases
| Input or situation | What version 1.0.0 checks | What it does not claim |
|---|---|---|
| Born-digital PDF | Tags marker, language, title, text coverage, outline, links and forms | Full semantic reading order or alt-text quality |
| Scanned PDF | Low text density and OCR need | Image interpretation without running OCR |
| Tagged PDF | Presence indicators visible to PDF.js/raw catalogue | Formal PDF/UA validation |
| Encrypted PDF | Only what the reader can open with available permission | Protected content without authorisation |
What the confidence score means
Confidence describes how much of the file the published parser could inspect and how specific the evidence was. It is deliberately separate from the result score. A 95/100 confidence value does not mean “95% likely to be true,” and a high health/readiness score does not certify safety, compliance or factual correctness.
Comparison with other approaches
| Approach | Useful strength | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Local accessibility preflight | Immediate local triage with evidence and next steps | Not a compliance certificate |
| PDF/UA validator | Formal machine validation | Cannot judge all human usability questions |
| Screen-reader review | Real interaction and reading-order evidence | Manual and time-consuming |
| Visual inspection | Catches clipping and contrast issues | Cannot inspect semantic tags alone |
5/5 fixtures passed (100%)
Dataset: FH-INT-SYNTH-2026-07. Scope: Tag, language, title, text-density and outline indicator fixtures. Fixtures contain generated data only; no visitor file or personal record is collected.
When this result can be wrong
A tag tree can exist and still be incorrect. Text extraction can look ordered while screen-reader order is wrong. Alt text may be present but meaningless. Final acceptance requires assistive-technology testing and a standards validator.
Keep the original file, test the output in the receiving application and escalate high-stakes legal, financial, medical, accessibility or security decisions to a qualified reviewer.
Version and accuracy change log
| Release | Date | Calculation/coverage change | Re-test requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0.0 | 2026-07-29 | Initial public engine, report schema, thresholds, synthetic fixtures and sample files. | All published fixtures and one browser sample per tool. |
Downloadable evidence, not a black-box verdict
After analysis, use Download JSON report for structured evidence or Download CSV report for review in a spreadsheet. Both include engine version, timestamp, score, confidence, metrics, findings, recommendations and limitations. Sensitive-data reports mask candidate values and no report includes the complete extracted document text.
Related tools and independent checks
Method or accuracy correction? Read the testing methodology and contact info@brothers.net.tr. Material scoring changes are published in the change log.