Reviewing a resource you already have

Four checks, in this order

Reviewing something that already exists is different from building something new, and it is the more common task. The material is in use, people depend on it, and you usually have an hour or two rather than a project. The order of the checks is what makes that hour productive.

Can it be found? Search for it the way a new colleague would, in ordinary words. Check whether the title names the task, whether anything in the workflow points to it, and whether a replaced version is still sitting next to it. If this check fails, stop here; the rest is polishing a document nobody reaches.

Can it be read by the tools people use? Are the headings real headings that carry the structure? Does every meaningful image have alt text that says what it shows? Does link text name its destination? Is the reading and keyboard order the same as the visible order? Does the table have real headers? Is the contrast adequate, and does any meaning depend on color alone?

Can it be understood on the first read? Does the structure follow the reader's task rather than the program's history? Is the answer near the top? Are specialized terms and abbreviations explained the first time? Would a person in their second week know which sentences are requirements and which are background?

Does it work for the range of people who receive it? Whose household, county, schedule, language and working conditions do the examples assume? Is there more than one way in, or one path plus an offer of alternatives on request? Is anything timed, scored or posted as a list of names, and does it earn that?

Which check would catch this?

The title is the project name and the form number, with nothing about the task.

The section breaks are bold text sized larger, not real headings.

The requirement appears on page two, after a page of history.

Every example assumes reliable personal transportation and daytime availability.

A replaced version of the same sheet is still on the page, undated.

Four abbreviations are used before any of them is explained.

The only summary of the process is a picture with no description.

The substance exists in one format, with a note offering alternatives on request.

A review record for one existing resource

One page that turns ninety minutes of reading into findings someone can act on.

Resource and audience New staff instruction sheet, two pages, sent by the unit lead in week one to every new hire including transfers from other divisions. Reviewed as a new colleague with no DSD background, using a screen reader.

Findings, check by check Found: title is the form number; nothing in the onboarding message links to it; a replaced version sits beside it undated. Read: section breaks are bold text rather than headings; the process picture has no description; two links read as here. Understood: the requirement appears after a page of background; four abbreviations are unexplained. Range: every example assumes a car and daytime availability; one format only.

Owner and first fix Unit lead: retitle by task, link it from the welcome message, mark the old version replaced. Training staff: convert the bold text to real headings, describe the picture, rewrite the two links — about one hour. Program staff: move the requirement to the top and explain the abbreviations at first use.

Accepted as is, and by whom The single-format limitation stays for now; a one-page summary is the agreed substitute until the page is rebuilt. Accepted in writing by the unit lead, with the reason recorded.

Next review point and triggers Look again at the agreed point, and sooner if the form changes, if the onboarding process changes, or if a new colleague tells us they could not find or use it.

Copy the five fields, fill them in for one resource you already own, and send the record to the person who owns the first fix — with the date you will both look at it again.

Browse and download only. Staff notes are not typed or saved on this page.

First fixes that need nobody's permission

Retitle the resource by the task, in the words people search for.
Convert sized bold text into real headings so the structure can be read aloud and navigated.
Write alt text that says what an image shows, and mark decorative images to be skipped.
Replace link text such as here and click here with the name of the destination.
Move the answer to the top and the history to the bottom.
Explain every abbreviation the first time it appears.
Add a one-page summary next to the full version, and say which is which.
Mark one version current, mark the rest replaced, and say in one line what changed.

Write the finding so someone can pick it up

What you can change

You control the form of the finding: what is wrong, who it stops, who owns the step, what the first fix is, and when it will be looked at again.

What to watch for

Do not send a list of impressions and expect action. A finding without an owner and a first fix is an observation, and observations are read once.

Your next step

Write your next three findings in that form, send them to the named owners, and put the review date in your own calendar rather than hoping someone else keeps it.

Your review of an internal instruction sheet finds that section breaks are bold text rather than real headings. Which entry is a complete finding?

Headings need work throughout the document.

Section breaks are sized bold text, not real headings, so screen reader users cannot navigate the structure and must read the whole sheet. Owner: training staff. First fix: convert to heading levels, about one hour. Look again at the agreed point.

The formatting is inconsistent and should be brought into line with the division's template.

Consider whether headings are necessary in a document of this length.

Try a situation

You have agreed to review one existing resource against inclusive design standards: a two-page instruction sheet your team sends to every new staff member in their first week. It has been in use for years, nobody has looked at it closely, and you have ninety minutes before your next meeting.

How do you spend the ninety minutes?

Read it closely and mark every sentence you would word differently, then send the marked-up copy to the owner.

Run four checks in order — can it be found, can it be read by the tools people use, can it be understood on a first read, does it work for the range of people who receive it — and write each finding with the people it stops, an owner and a first fix.

Send it to a colleague who uses a screen reader and ask her to tell you what is wrong with it.

Carry this forward

Review in a fixed order — found, read, understood, works for the range — because an unfindable document's wording problems do not matter yet, and a fix at the wrong level wastes the hour you have.
A finding is only useful when it names what is wrong, who it stops, who owns the step and what the first fix is. Everything short of that is an observation that will be read once and lost.
Some findings will be accepted as they are. That is legitimate when it is written down and signed by a named person, and corrosive when it happens silently.
Do not hand a colleague who uses a screen reader your unchecked draft and call it a review. Run the basic checks first; when you do bring in outside reviewers or community co-designers, compensate them and tell them afterward what changed.

A scenario about how to spend a ninety-minute review, sorting practice that assigns real findings to the check that would catch them, and a completed one-page review record for a single resource.

Run the four checks on one resource you own, fill in the review record, and send it to the person who owns the first fix — with a date you will both look at it again.

What you’ll be able to do

Four checks, in this order

A review record for one existing resource

First fixes that need nobody's permission

Write the finding so someone can pick it up

What you can change

What to watch for

Your next step

Try a situation

Carry this forward

Your next step

Reviewing a resource you already have

What you’ll be able to do

Four checks, in this order

A review record for one existing resource

First fixes that need nobody's permission

Write the finding so someone can pick it up

What you can change

What to watch for

Your next step

Try a situation

Carry this forward

Your next step