FormFest 2025 Recap: Does Your Accessible Form Work Well for Screen Readers?

Elections are full of forms: voter registration, ballot requests, and address updates. Even if there is an online version, they’re still made available as PDFs because some voters need a format they can download to fill out. And that means they have to be accessible. But, compliance isn’t enough. The Center for Civic Design (CCD) wanted to learn how screen reader users navigate and fill out PDF forms, so they could provide a better voter experience. In a recent usability test, they observed people filling out the same form in web and PDF formats. In this FormFest session, civic designer, researcher, and plain language lead at the Center for Civic Design, Sean Johnson, reported on the different approaches users took to forms, and shared tips to make forms a better experience for blind and low-vision users. He also introduced their updated toolkit for creating accessible PDF forms using Adobe InDesign, as well as techniques to build-in more usable accessibility from the start—so no remediation is needed.

Main Points

• CCD conducted usability testing on voter registration forms using screen readers, the most common assistive technology.
• Testing showed extreme variation in how screen reader users navigate and complete forms, with both online and PDF forms presented significant accessibility barriers.
• Effective accessibility requires understanding real user behavior, not assumed workflows.

Lessons Learned

• Minor wording or validation choices can create major accessibility barriers.
• Prioritizing critical blockers over minor annoyances leads to better accessible design outcomes.

Actionable Takeaways

• Use precise, process-appropriate language and avoid introducing the word “form” too early.
• Avoid shorthand, abbreviations, or initialisms that screen readers may misinterpret.
• Form designers should focus on accessibility at the start of the form development process to better design forms for screen readers. 

In this session, Johnson discussed how the CCD conducted usability testing and expert interviews on voter registration forms. Testing how online forms operate on screen readers is crucial because it is the most prevalent form of assistive technology and contains many complex and technical requirements. Through this research, Johnson hoped to learn more about how screen readers navigate websites, understand what methods screen readers use to fill out forms, and learn more about the attitude screen reader users have regarding accessibility. 

Using the Vote.gov voter registration web form and the State of Colorado’s voter registration PDF form, Johnson and the CCD tested how these forms interacted with screen readers and screen reader users. Johnson focused testing on individuals with low vision or blindness; heavily reliant on a screen reader; regularly using a screen reader with a computer (as tablets and smartphones have different screen reading technologies); and those who were seen as experts in using assistive technology. The team also  tested those who had experience with multiple screen reading platforms. Ultimately, Johnson learned that there was extreme variation in screen reader users, with no common strategies or approaches that could be used to optimize accessibility in forms. Johnson noted that understanding the specific issues screen readers face was critical and which are just annoying are key. By ordering priorities based on which issues are most important, it helps optimize the form design process and ensure that forms are accessible to those who use assistive technology. 

“It’s like having Plan A, B, and C.”

Sean Johnson
Designer/Researcher, Center for Civic Design

Johnson’s findings showed that screen reader users had different strategies they switched between to accurately fill out a form. Many of them started in the screen readers’ “form mode,” which jumped through form response sections, and ignored headers and additional information. When that no longer worked, the user switched to a different approach, such as reviewing the information on the webpage linearly, looking only at headings, or using the screen reader to search for buttons. No matter what approach the user took, they faced many challenges when filling out both the PDF form and the online form on Vote.gov, underscoring the common problems with current form development.

1. Problem: Screen reader users get lost when the term “form” is used too early and they set their screen reader to Form Mode.
   Solution: Be very clear with the language used and only use the term “form” when the form is imminent.
   
2. Problem: Saying “begin” or “end” in the middle of a process can confuse users using Buttons Mode.
   Solution: Use language that is process-appropriate.
   
3. Problem: Early validation of responses that occurs when the user has not completed filling that response. An example would be the phone number question where you start inputting and it starts marking an error. The user would hear the error every time they input a number to fulfill the 10-digit number requirement
   Solution: Set an appropriate validation threshold.
   
4. Problem: Unclear directions. An example would be a date of birth question that does not clarify if the date of birth should be inputted as M/D/YY or MM/DD/YYYY and sends an error message to the user.
   Solution: Clarify what the requirements are for a response within the question.
   
5. Problem: Shorthand terms misunderstood by the screen reader.
   Solution: Avoid using shorthand terms or initialisms.

Overall, Johnson hopes that this research helps improve the workflow in form development and underscores the importance of designing forms with a focus on accessibility from the start. One organization cannot create all forms for every government. By creating an easily adaptable workflow, more governments can adopt a process that puts accessibility at the forefront of form development.