12 minutes
Plain language, the keyboard-only test and the rationale Write for adults without talking down, test your content the way a keyboard user meets it, and record what you changed and why.
What you’ll be able to do Apply plain-language principles while preserving accuracy and respect, run a keyboard-only test and a screen-reader-informed check on a piece of content, and write an accessibility rationale. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What should the team take from that feedback? Draft Accessibility rationale for your work, including what was inaccessible, and who it affected, what changed, how it was verified. Plain language respects the reader Plain language is content the intended reader can find, understand the first time and use. It is a legal expectation for much federal public communication and a professional standard in Minnesota state government. It matters for people with cognitive and learning disabilities, people reading in a second language, people under stress, and everyone reading on a phone in a waiting room. It is not simplification for its own sake, and it is not a tone. The failures in the scenario are common: dropping essential information because it is complex, replacing exact names because they are long, and adding cheer because the writer confuses warmth with informality.
The techniques are well established. Lead with what the reader needs to do and by when. Use short sentences and familiar words, but keep exact program, benefit and office names, because the reader will need to say them to someone. Use headings that answer the reader’s questions. Put one idea in each paragraph. Prefer active sentences that say who does what. Explain a necessary term the first time instead of avoiding it. Give examples. And treat the reader as a capable adult who can handle complexity when it is organized; complexity is not the enemy, confusion is.
Then test. A readability score is a diagnostic. The tests that matter are whether a person unfamiliar with the program can say what the notice is asking them to do, and whether the content passes a keyboard-only walk and a screen-reader-informed check. The test below is written so that anyone on your team can run it and record what they observed, not what they thought.
The keyboard-only test Put the mouse out of reach. Open the content where a person would start: the link in the email, the page in the site, the file as sent.
Press Tab repeatedly from the top. Confirm that every link, button, field, menu and control receives focus, in an order that matches the visual order, and that nothing is skipped.
At every stop, confirm a visible focus indicator. Note any element where you cannot tell where you are.
Activate each control with Enter or Space. Use arrow keys inside groups of choices, menus and tabs. Note anything that does not respond.
Open every dialog, menu, embedded video or expandable section, then leave it with Tab or Escape. Note any place you cannot get out of.
Complete the whole task, submit the form, finish the lesson or reach the end of the document, using only the keyboard. Record how long it took and where you hesitated.
Turn on the screen reader built into your computer and read the heading list and link list. Note any heading that is missing or out of order and any link that does not make sense alone.
Read the page in grayscale or with sound off, as appropriate. Note anything whose meaning disappeared. Write every observation as location, what happened, and what it prevented.
Accessibility rationale A short record kept with any content you remediate. It explains the changes to the next editor and shows what was verified. The example is a provider bulletin.
What was inaccessible, and who it affected Headings were visual only, so screen-reader users had no outline; eight links read “click here”; three charts had no alt text; hint text was light gray on white below the contrast threshold; the linked form had a fifteen-minute time limit with no extension.
What changed Applied heading styles in order; rewrote each link to name its destination; wrote alt text stating each chart’s message and added data tables; darkened hint text to meet 4.5 to 1; asked the form owner to add a warning and extension, and offered a phone and paper route in the bulletin until that is done.
How it was verified Navigation pane shows a complete outline; link list reads sensibly out of context; keyboard-only test completed in one pass with visible focus throughout and no traps; screen-reader heading and link lists reviewed; contrast measured with a checker. Verified by a second person on a stated date and kept with the file.
What remains and who owns it The time limit on the linked form is not yet fixed; owner is the form’s system owner, with the accessibility team advising, decision requested within 30 days. Interim route is named in the bulletin.
Save the rationale with the file and its version, so the next editor can see what was done and what is still open.
Browse and download only. Staff notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Download this published draft Test with the mouse out of reach What you can change You control whether the content your unit publishes has been walked with a keyboard and a screen reader by someone before release, and whether the observations are recorded.
What to watch for Do not sign off on “it looks fine to me.” Looking is the one test that does not catch these barriers.
Your next step Run the keyboard-only test yourself on the next item your unit publishes, and attach the observations to the approval.
Finishing well Plain language
Find it, understand it the first time, use it. Keep exact names and essential information; drop needless difficulty and filler; treat the reader as a capable adult.
Readability score
A diagnostic that measures sentence and word length. It cannot tell you whether the reader can act. Test with a person and with the keyboard.
Keyboard-only test
A fixed sequence: reach, focus, activate, escape, complete, then read the heading and link lists with a screen reader. Record observations, not opinions.
Accessibility rationale
What was inaccessible and for whom, what changed, how it was verified, what remains and who owns it. Kept with the file.
Screen-reader-informed check
Not a full expert review; a look at the heading list, the link list, alt text and reading order with the built-in screen reader, done by the author before the accessibility team ever sees it.
The new letter was easier to read. It also lost the deadline. Easy to read and useful to me are two different things, and I need both.
Composite participant perspective, illustrative Take it to your work Before you publish or send, run your own work through the three-pass check : access and plain language, what you assumed people know, and tone. For a notice or letter that changes a process, the form and notice path adds the burden questions.
Carry this forward Plain language means the reader can find what they need, understand it the first time and use it; it removes needless difficulty, not necessary meaning or the reader’s dignity.
The keyboard-only test is a fixed sequence anyone can run; its results are observations, not opinions.
An accessibility rationale records what was inaccessible, who it affected, what changed and how it was verified, so the next editor does not undo it.
One piece of content remediated, a completed keyboard-only test and a written accessibility rationale.
Choose one document, slide deck, form or lesson you own. Remediate it, run the keyboard-only test, write the rationale and keep both with the file.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Back to course Carry this into practice Build documents, slides, videos, forms and lessons that work with a keyboard, a screen reader and captions, then prove it with a test you can run yourself.
Return to the experience: What did you notice or try, whose perspective informed it, and what would you keep or adjust?
Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
