Semantic by design
HTML elements (<h1>, <nav>, <table>, <li>) carry inherent meaning that assistive technology understands natively.
Our approach
Why We Deliver HTML, Not Remediated PDFs
This isn't about cutting costs. It's about choosing the format that delivers real, structural accessibility: documents that are semantic, responsive, testable, and maintainable from day one.
The problem with PDF remediation
1
PDFs are fixed-layout containers designed for print, not screens.
2
PDF tags are a bolted-on accessibility layer, not native semantics.
3
Screen readers struggle with complex PDF tag trees. Tables, nested lists, and reading order break down.
4
Remediated PDFs break when content is updated, and the entire remediation must be redone.
5
There is no live validation. You can't test a PDF's accessibility in real-time the way you test HTML.
6
PDF accessibility is fragile. One wrong tag can break the entire reading order.
Why HTML is the native language of accessibility
Responsive and adaptable
HTML reflows for any screen size, zoom level, or display mode. PDFs are fixed boxes.
Live testable
Run WCAG validators, screen reader tests, and automated audits in real-time on HTML.
Maintainable
Edit text, update content, and push a version without destroying structure or re-remediating the entire document.
Interoperable
HTML works in every browser, every device, every assistive technology. No special viewer needed.
Version-controlled
Track changes, compare versions, and maintain history. None of this is possible with binary PDF files.
It's not about cost. It's about the document.
We could remediate PDFs. Many vendors do. But we chose HTML because we believe accessibility shouldn't be an afterthought bolted onto an inaccessible format.
A remediated PDF is still a PDF: fixed layout, fragile tags, viewer-dependent.
An HTML document is natively accessible: semantic, responsive, testable, editable.
Your users deserve documents that actually work, not documents that merely pass a checklist.
“The real question isn't ‘which is cheaper?’ It's ‘which actually serves your users better?’”
Side-by-side: PDF remediation vs HTML conversion
| Aspect | PDF Remediation | HTML Conversion |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Tags bolted onto fixed layout | Native semantic elements |
| Screen reader support | Viewer-dependent, often inconsistent | Universal browser support |
| Content updates | Re-remediate entire document | Edit text, keep structure |
| Responsive display | Fixed dimensions | Reflows to any screen |
| Live testing | Requires specialized PDF tools | Standard browser dev tools |
| Version history | Binary diffs only | Text-based diff and versioning |
| Long-term maintenance | High regression risk | Stable, predictable updates |
What about users who need PDFs?
We don't oppose PDFs. For print-specific or archival use, PDFs still make sense.
But for documents that need to be read, navigated, searched, and understood by all users, including those using screen readers, magnifiers, or alternative input, HTML is objectively the better medium.
If you need parallel PDF delivery alongside HTML, we can discuss that as part of your workflow plan.
Experience the difference
See what truly accessible documents look like
Submit a document and receive semantic, responsive HTML that your users can actually navigate. Not a tagged PDF that technically passes a checker.