If you work at a university that uses Blackboard Ally, you've seen the indicators: red, yellow, and green gauges next to every file uploaded to your LMS. Your PowerPoint just scored 34%. The gauge is deep red. Students can see it. Your department chair can see it.
You want to fix it, but you're not entirely sure what Ally is checking, what it expects you to do about it, or why the built-in PowerPoint checker said your file was mostly fine.
Here's what's actually going on.
How Blackboard Ally Scoring Works
Ally is an institutional tool that integrates with your LMS (Blackboard, Canvas, D2L, Moodle). When an instructor uploads a file to a course, Ally automatically scans it and generates an accessibility score from 0 to 100%.
For PowerPoint files, Ally checks for:
- Alt text on images — Are all images described, or are descriptions missing/inadequate?
- Slide titles — Does every slide have a proper title element?
- Reading order — Is the content sequence logical for a screen reader?
- Color contrast — Does text meet minimum contrast ratios?
- Document language — Is the language tag set so screen readers know how to pronounce content?
- Table structure — Do tables have proper headers?
Based on what it finds, Ally assigns a score and provides guidance on what to fix. It also generates alternative formats for students: tagged PDF, HTML, audio, ePub, and Beeline Reader versions. These alternative formats are genuinely useful for students and are one of Ally's real strengths.
But here's the critical distinction: Ally does not modify your original file. The PPTX you uploaded is exactly the same after Ally processes it. Ally tells you what's wrong and creates workarounds for students, but the source file remains inaccessible.
What the Built-In PowerPoint Accessibility Checker Misses
So you open the file in PowerPoint and run the Accessibility Checker (Review > Check Accessibility). It flags a few missing alt text descriptions and maybe a missing slide title. You fix those, re-upload, and your Ally score goes from 34% to... 52%. Still orange. What happened?
Microsoft's built-in checker has notable blind spots:
Reading order verification is shallow. The checker will flag slides where it detects a potential reading order issue, but it doesn't catch most problems. If you've duplicated a slide and rearranged elements, or if you've used multiple text boxes instead of the built-in content placeholders, the reading order is often wrong and the checker doesn't flag it.
Alt text quality isn't assessed. The checker confirms that alt text exists, but it doesn't evaluate whether "image1.png" or "picture of thing" is meaningful. Ally is somewhat better here — it can detect boilerplate or filename-based alt text — but neither tool can tell you whether your description actually conveys the information in the image.
Language tags are barely addressed. PowerPoint's checker may flag the document language in some versions, but it's inconsistent across PowerPoint versions, and the fix isn't straightforward. Many faculty don't realize this is a factor in their Ally score.
Contrast in images is ignored. If you have text embedded in an image (a common scenario with screenshots, infographics, or lecture capture slides), neither the built-in checker nor Ally can assess the contrast within that image. But it's still an accessibility barrier.
Hyperlink text gets a pass. Raw URLs pasted into slides, or vague link text like "click here" and "link," are problematic for screen reader users but often slip past the built-in checker.
The Gap Between Scanning and Fixing
This is the fundamental problem. You now have two tools telling you what's wrong with your file:
- Ally scans the uploaded file, assigns a score, and generates alternative formats for students.
- PowerPoint's Accessibility Checker catches some (but not all) of the same issues and provides basic guidance.
Neither tool can:
- Write meaningful alt text for your images
- Reorder slide elements into a logical reading sequence
- Set or correct language tags in the file's XML
- Assess whether your existing alt text actually describes what's in the image
- Batch process a semester's worth of decks
You're left with a list of problems and a manual remediation process. For a single deck, that's annoying but manageable. For an instructor with 50+ decks, or a department trying to remediate course materials across dozens of sections, it's a resource crisis.
How Aprivo Bridges the Gap
Aprivo is built specifically to close the gap between identifying accessibility issues and actually fixing them. It's a remediation tool, not another scanner.
Here's how it works in practice with Ally:
- Ally flags a PowerPoint with a low accessibility score in your LMS.
- Download the PPTX from your course.
- Upload it to Aprivo. AI analyzes every slide — identifying images that need alt text, checking reading order, verifying titles, and assessing language settings.
- Review the fixes. Aprivo uses Claude's vision AI to generate contextual alt text. It doesn't just say "a chart" — it reads the chart and describes the data, trends, and labels. You review each suggestion and approve, edit, or override.
- Download the remediated file and re-upload to your LMS.
- Ally rescans automatically and your score reflects the actual fixes in the source file.
The difference between Aprivo and the scanning tools is simple: Aprivo modifies the PPTX. When you re-upload, the alt text is embedded in the file. The reading order is corrected in the file. The language tag is set in the file. Ally's score improves because the underlying problems are gone, not because you've added a workaround.
What This Looks Like in Practice
| Issue | Ally Response | Built-In Checker | Aprivo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing alt text | Flags it, lowers score | Flags it | Generates contextual alt text using AI |
| Poor alt text quality | May flag boilerplate | Ignores quality | AI writes descriptions based on image content |
| Reading order errors | Flags some issues | Catches some issues | Corrects element order in the file |
| Missing slide titles | Flags it, lowers score | Flags it | Identifies and flags for review |
| Missing language tag | Flags it, lowers score | Inconsistent | Sets language tag in file XML |
| Low contrast text | May flag | May flag | Flags for manual review |
Making Ally Work for You, Not Against You
Ally is a valuable tool. The alternative formats it generates give students real options, and the scoring system creates visibility into accessibility across an institution. The issue isn't that Ally is inadequate — it's that Ally was designed to surface problems, not solve them.
When you pair a scanning tool like Ally with a remediation tool like Aprivo, you get a complete workflow: identify, fix, verify. Ally handles the first and last steps. Aprivo handles the middle one, which is where all the labor lives.
Try Aprivo free — 10 decks/month, no credit card required.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will fixing my PowerPoint in Aprivo guarantee a 100% Ally score?
Aprivo addresses the most common and labor-intensive issues: alt text, reading order, slide titles, and language tags. These are typically responsible for the bulk of Ally score deductions on PowerPoint files. Some issues, like color contrast choices in your slide design or complex embedded media, may still need manual attention. Most users see scores jump from the 30-50% range to 85-95% after Aprivo remediation.
Does Aprivo work with Canvas, D2L, or Moodle, not just Blackboard?
Aprivo works on the PPTX file itself, so it's LMS-agnostic. You download the PowerPoint, remediate it in Aprivo, and re-upload to whatever platform your institution uses. Ally (or any other LMS-integrated accessibility scanner) will rescan the improved file regardless of which LMS you're on.
Can our disability services office use Aprivo to remediate files on behalf of faculty?
Yes. The Max plan ($199/month) supports high-volume remediation, which makes it practical for a central accessibility office to process files across departments. Several institutions use this model: disability services or instructional design staff handle remediation centrally, and faculty receive the accessible files back.