Tell buyers how the digital product can be used

A creator can truthfully say a download is a PDF and still leave a buyer unable to read it with their usual tools. A picture of text, an unlabeled table or a video without captions can turn a useful product into a blocked task. This guide helps a creator decide what to say before payment: which use was actually tested, which use is unknown, and when to repair a file or offer a real alternative. The compatibility guide covers applications and devices; this page examines access to the information and actions inside the delivered content. Exact-query search demand is an unmeasured hypothesis after the finalized September 10 to October 7 Search Console window reviewed October 11.

Describe the work, not a vague accessibility badge

Start with the buyer's promised job: read a lesson in order, fill a planning worksheet, follow a video demonstration or edit a template. List the format and every part needed to complete that job. A blanket “accessible to everyone” claim cannot be verified by a quick file-open test. Say what was checked in the specific version, with which tools, and what is still limited. The W3C's accessibility-statement guidance recommends a defined scope, known limitations, feedback route and review date. That is a useful discipline for a product disclosure even when the creator is not issuing a formal conformance statement.

Do not imply that Loresta tests or certifies every file a creator uploads. A Loresta Creator Page can describe an optional download and provide a path for questions, but the creator owns the file, its claims and the actual fulfillment terms. A customer should see a meaningful description before paying and receive the same version that was described. The sales-page guide shows where that promise belongs among the offer facts.

Fill a six-field accessibility evidence card

Keep one internal card per deliverable version. For each row, name the expected buyer task, what was actually tested, the tester and date, the observed result, a known limit and the public wording or repair owner. Short buyer-facing copy may summarize the card; the underlying record prevents an old statement from being copied onto a new export. Mark untested as untested. A creator should not turn one successful screen-reader session into a promise about every reader, device, language or assistive setup.

These are disclosure fields, not a substitute for a full accessibility evaluation. W3C's WCAG2ICT overview explains why WCAG principles can inform non-web documents and software while their application to a particular file still needs judgment and testing. If a creator wants to make a specific standard-conformance claim, they need evidence against that standard for the exact deliverable. A simple card supports a narrower, honest feature statement when formal evaluation has not happened.

Test the file from a buyer view

Begin at the public offer. Copy its stated format and access promise, then follow a safe seller-supported preview or test route to the actual buyer-facing file. Do not publish a protected file link or make an unnecessary live purchase. Open the delivered version in the named tool and perform one representative task without relying on the creator's source project. For a guide, navigate its headings, follow a link and read a figure's intended meaning. For a worksheet, move through its fields and save the result. For a video lesson, use the delivered captions or transcript to understand an essential step. Record observations rather than a yes-or-no badge.

Check keyboard use and structure where those matter, and invite a qualified person to evaluate a specific unsupported path when available. W3C's preliminary checks include headings, text alternatives, keyboard access and form labels, but explicitly frame them as a first review. If the file is a complex PDF, interactive template or media course, a superficial check leaves important risks. Limit the public wording to the part actually verified and provide a contact route for questions. Keep the first-use instructions consistent with the tested path.

Review delivery as well as content. A beautiful accessible source document does not help if the platform sends only a flattened image export. Compare the entitlement, filenames, archive contents and public description. If a required app has its own accessibility limits, name the tested app and a realistic alternative only if the alternative is actually included. Do not promise a custom conversion, support response time or future update that the creator has not approved.

Rehearse a scanned-PDF claim failure

Imagine a fictional creator selling a printable family-history workbook. The public offer says “screen-reader friendly PDF,” but the paid file is a scan of printed pages. A sighted reviewer can zoom and read it; a buyer using text navigation cannot reach the questions in order. The creator, file and result are invented for this decision drill, not Loresta customer data. The version, buyer-task, structure and tools-tested rows fail, even though the download link works.

The creator removes or narrows the unsupported claim before selling more copies. They can rebuild the workbook as structured text with labeled fields, test the delivered export using the intended reading path, or offer a genuinely usable text version if they have made and tested it. They should not claim that optical character recognition alone fixes headings, reading order or interactive fields. If the issue affected real customers, the creator uses the actual sale and support terms to handle their requests instead of quietly swapping the file. A corrected upload gets a new version and evidence card, then a new buyer-view check.

Keep the disclosure current after publication

Place a concise feature and limit summary near the digital offer before payment. State the format, the access tasks tested, named tools when relevant, known limitations, any real alternative and how to ask a question. Link fuller details if needed. Keep the card with the product version and set a review date after export changes, platform delivery changes, new media or a meaningful buyer report. The update guide covers preserving prior buyer promises when an old version is replaced.

Count questions about access, actual completed purchases, successful retrieval, use problems, support work and refunds separately. A complaint identifies a task to investigate; silence does not prove every buyer could use the file. The decision before publication is concrete: the wording describes observed behavior of the delivered version, does not hide known limitations, and points a buyer to a monitored question path. If a central feature remains untested, hold the broad claim or the offer until the creator can supply a truthful alternative.