Start with the decision the slides support
Choose one presentation your team actually uses: an induction, a project update or a proposal awaiting approval. Write down what its reader should understand or decide. Our recommendation is to use that purpose as the starting point for review, rather than treating an empty list of automated warnings as the finishing line.
Microsoft says its Accessibility Checker cannot detect every accessibility issue and recommends visual review as well. Use the checker, investigate its findings and then review the presentation itself. This article suggests a small editorial exercise; it is not a complete accessibility assessment.
Look for meaning carried only by colour
Microsoft identifies information conveyed using colour alone as a limitation of the checker. For your review, look at status tables and charts and ask what the reader would know without recognising a particular colour. Add an explicit label where it carries a decision that the colour currently leaves unstated.
In a fictional project update, three workstreams appear as coloured circles. The author replaces that unexplained shorthand with written status descriptions beside each workstream, including the action needed for the delayed item. The reviewer can now discuss the decision from the words on the slide. This is an illustrative editing exercise, not a result from a user study.
Give the reviewer an ordinary task
Ask a colleague to find the decision requested and explain which evidence supports it. Let them use the presentation as it will actually be shared. Avoid coaching them towards the intended answer; note where they need an explanation that is absent from the material.
Invite the intended audience to flag difficulties through a suitable feedback route, without requiring anyone to disclose a disability in a group meeting. Agree appropriate specialist review where your organisation needs it. One colleague understanding the deck does not establish that it works for everyone, and a visual check cannot stand in for all accessibility testing.
Keep the useful correction in the next version
Resolve the specific issue in the presentation and check the revised wording with its owner. If the same problem comes from a shared template, ask the template owner to review that element too. Record which version was reviewed so a later export or edit does not silently become the version everyone assumes was checked.
Finish with an agreed copy, a short note of what was changed and an owner for any unresolved difficulty. Keep the note practical: “status meaning now written beside each workstream” is more useful than a blanket claim that the presentation is fully accessible. Repeat the relevant review when the material changes.
Sources
Practical suggestions in this article are editorial recommendations. The source supports the guidance attributed to it.
- Microsoft Support · Accessibility Checker rules ↗
Checked 18 October 2026
Something needs correcting?
Get in touch to explain which claim needs attention and share the supporting source.