Accessibility Archives - Page 2 of 26/Tag

AI, Pro Se Plaintiffs, and the Rise of Web Accessibility Lawsuits
Digital accessibility is no longer enforced only by regulators or a small group of plaintiff firms. AI tools now make it easy for individuals to prepare and file complaints on their own, and web accessibility lawsuits are following. Cases arrive faster, with less context, and often land on teams that are already stretched.

The expectation itself has not changed. If a website has barriers that stop people from completing tasks, those barriers still matter, and courts continue to treat them as significant. What has changed is how quickly issues can be turned into legal action. Understanding how AI-generated complaints are assembled and why they are showing up more often helps teams respond with more control instead of reacting under pressure.

The New Wave of Pro Se Plaintiffs Using AI

A growing share of accessibility cases are now filed by individuals representing themselves. In legal terms, these filers are pro se plaintiffs. Pro se litigation has existed for a long time, but its role in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enforcement has expanded quickly.

In 2025, federal data shows a sharp rise in pro se ADA Title III filings, increasing about 40% over 2024 according to Seyfarth Shaw. This democratization of litigation means that anyone with access to a large language model and basic tools can generate a legally sufficient complaint, lowering the cost of entry that once required retaining an attorney.

For organizations, the enforcement landscape looks different from what it did a few years ago. Complaints now come from a larger mix of people and can appear in higher volume. Some raise legitimate barriers. Others arrive with long lists of issues that do not reflect how the site actually behaves. Either way, they require time, money, and attention from teams that rarely have extra capacity.

How AI-Generated ADA Complaints Are Built

AI-assisted complaints tend to follow a common pattern. The details vary, but the steps are similar.

Drafting the Complaint

A plaintiff starts by describing what happened and where. That narrative becomes a prompt. The AI tool returns a complaint with legal framing, structure, and citations modeled on previous filings. AI tools like ChatGPT and similar large language models can draft these complaints in minutes, generating legal language and structured allegations automatically.

Gathering “Evidence”

Free and low-cost accessibility scanners are used to crawl key pages. They surface potential barriers related to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and compile reports and screenshots.. These tools do not detect every barrier, and they can mislabel or overstate issues, but the output looks technical and complete. Those reports are often attached as primary exhibits.

Reusing Templates

Complaints that seem effective or are shared online often become templates. Names, URLs, and dates are updated, while large sections of text stay the same. This makes it easy to file similar complaints against many organizations with only small edits.

Filing Online

Electronic court portals allow filings to be submitted from anywhere. There is no need to schedule time with counsel or navigate in-person paperwork to start a case.

Taken together, these steps compress the process. Work that once took days or weeks can now happen in hours. For a small number of individuals, this efficiency makes high-volume filing possible. That is where many business owners feel the impact: not from a single complaint, but from the sense that they can be targeted repeatedly with little warning.

Red Flags That Suggest AI Played a Major Role

Courts and defense teams are starting to recognize patterns that often suggest heavy AI involvement. These signals do not automatically invalidate a case, but they can help teams decide what to verify first.

Common signs include:

Citations That Do Not Exist

Some complaints reference cases that cannot be located in any legal database.

Misstated Holdings

The case is real, but the description of what the court decided is wrong or misleading.

Compressed Timelines

Lengthy, well-structured briefs appear very quickly, especially from non-lawyers who have limited experience with legal drafting.

Generic Lists of Barriers

The complaint lists issues that do not appear on the site, such as CAPTCHA problems when no CAPTCHA is used, or components that the interface does not rely on.

Mismatch Between Writing and Presentation

The legal documents read as if prepared by an experienced litigator, whereas the filer’s explanation in court or correspondence is far less sophisticated.

Even when these patterns are present, judges still look at the underlying question: are there real barriers that prevent people from using the site? For organizations, the practical response is to separate signal from noise. That means confirming which issues are genuine, technical but low impact, or exist only because an automated tool misread the interface. Time and budget are better spent on changes that fix real problems than on chasing every line of AI-generated text.

AI as Assistive Technology Does Not Change Legal Duties

AI is also changing assistive technology. Screen readers and related tools now use AI to generate richer image descriptions, interpret layouts, and infer relationships between elements. For some users, these improvements make certain sites more usable than they were a few years ago.

That progress does not change the legal standard. ADA enforcement focuses on whether the website or application itself is accessible. People are not required to rely on advanced or paid tools to get around avoidable barriers.

If someone using a common screen reader, keyboard navigation, or magnification tool cannot complete a task because of missing labels, incorrect semantics, or inaccessible controls, the barrier still exists. AI support tools do not erase that responsibility.

Courts are also starting to respond when AI is misused in filings. Some federal judges have sanctioned litigants for submitting materials that include fabricated cases or inaccurate citations, and in certain matters have restricted the use of AI in court filings altogether. These responses are still evolving, but they show that judges are paying attention to how AI is being applied in litigation.

From a risk perspective, it helps to treat AI-powered assistive tools as a supplement. They may help some users, but they do not replace the need for accessible design and development. They also do not insulate an organization from complaints if basic tasks remain inaccessible.

Where Web Accessibility Lawsuits Are Landing

Early data from Useablenet’s 2025 mid-year report shows more than 2,000 digital accessibility cases filed in the first half of the year, with projections approaching 5,000 by year’s end. A growing share of these web accessibility lawsuits involve AI-generated or AI-assisted complaints.

Most of these cases are not evenly spread across the web. They cluster in certain industries and patterns:
- E-commerce and transactional experiences
  Close to 70% of cases involve e-commerce sites. Product discovery, cart, and checkout flows draw attention because they are easy to test and directly tied to revenue.
- Mid-sized organizations
  Around 64% of cases involve companies with annual revenue of less than 25 million dollars. These organizations often have lean teams and limited internal legal support. That can make them appear more likely to settle quickly, which in turn can attract more filings.
- Sites using widgets and overlays
  More than 20% of recent cases involve sites that installed an accessibility overlay. Complaints often point out that the overlay did not fix underlying issues in templates, components, or key flows.
For executives and product leaders, the pattern is clear. AI is amplifying enforcement in environments where business-critical experiences are not fully accessible and where teams do not have a strong, documented accessibility program in place. The risk is not only the presence of barriers, but the combination of barriers and a filing landscape that now moves faster and at greater scale.

Building an Accessibility Program That Holds Up

In this environment, the most effective response is not to plan around individual cases, but to build a program that stands up to both user expectations and legal scrutiny.

Core elements include:

Anchor on WCAG 2.1 Level AA

Courts and regulators continue to lean on this standard when they evaluate access. Using it as your baseline keeps internal expectations aligned with external review.

Use Both Automated and Manual Testing

Automated tools are useful for catching common issues early and monitoring regressions, but they do not see everything. Manual testing with screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, zoom, and voice tools gives a clearer picture of what people experience and highlights problems automation misses.

Prioritize Templates and Critical Flows

Start with navigation, search, account creation, forms, cart, and checkout. Improvements in these areas remove barriers that show up often in complaints and protect the journeys most tied to revenue and trust.

Integrate Accessibility Into Existing Workflows

Add practical checks into design reviews, code reviews, and QA. Keep them focused and repeatable so they fit into current processes. When accessibility is part of the way releases ship, it becomes harder for issues to build up unnoticed.

Document What You Are Doing

Keep records of audits, remediation work, training, vendor requirements, and standards for components and content. This documentation helps teams stay aligned and provides a concrete way to show effort if a demand letter or complaint arrives. Over time, this kind of documentation becomes one of the strongest defenses an organization can bring to the table when facing web accessibility lawsuits.

For leadership, this approach places accessibility in the same category as security and privacy: an ongoing operational responsibility. It also creates a clearer position when responding to AI-assisted complaints that blend legitimate issues with errors or overreach.

Responding When an AI-Generated Complaint Arrives

When a complaint comes in, whether clearly AI-generated or not, the first goal is to reduce confusion and avoid unnecessary escalation.

Helpful steps include:

Validate the Issues

Test the specific barriers named in the complaint. Sort them into groups: incorrect claims, technically accurate but low-impact issues, and serious barriers that block tasks. This makes remediation plans more realistic and gives legal teams better information.

Review Citations and References

Confirm that cited cases exist and that the summaries are accurate. Flag problems so counsel can address them with the court or opposing party.

Avoid Rushed Surface Fixes

Installing a new overlay or making untested changes can introduce new issues or send a signal that accessibility is being treated as a checkbox. Focus on changes that are tested, documented, and consistent with your broader standards.

Feed Lessons Back Into the Program

Use what you learn to update components, patterns, and checks. Close gaps in design systems and QA so similar issues are less likely to reappear.

Handled this way, a complaint becomes part of an ongoing process rather than a series of disconnected emergencies.

Reducing Risk in an Era of AI-Generated Web Accessibility Lawsuits

The pace and shape of accessibility enforcement are changing, and no organization is fully prepared for the speed that AI has introduced into the process. Even teams that care about accessibility and make steady improvements can feel caught off guard when a complaint arrives that was drafted quickly and filed with little warning. You are not alone in that experience. Every industry is adjusting to a landscape where expectations remain familiar, but the mechanics are new.

There is still uncertainty in how digital Title III claims will evolve, especially as AI lowers the barrier to filing. What organizations can control is how they operate. Maintain a steady accessibility practice, align with established standards, and document decisions and remediation. That combination does not eliminate risk, but it holds up far better than reactive changes made under pressure and gives you a stronger footing when facing web accessibility lawsuits driven by AI.

If you need support building that foundation, we can help.

At 216digital, we can help develop a strategy to integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development roadmap on your terms. To learn more about how our experts can help you confidently create and maintain an accessible website that supports both your business goals and the needs of your users, schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing today.
Greg McNeil

December 16, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, ADA Website Compliance, Web Accessibility, web accessibility lawsuits, Website Accessibility
ADA Title II vs. Title III: What’s the Difference?
Websites and mobile apps are now the primary way people access services, complete transactions, and manage information. For users who rely on assistive technology, accessibility determines whether those tasks can be completed at all.

As digital accessibility expectations continue to evolve, many organizations are reassessing how the ADA applies to their online services and overall ADA web accessibility requirements. In particular, teams are working to understand whether their websites, applications, and digital documents fall under Title II or Title III, especially as new Title II accessibility standards take effect this year and private enforcement activity under Title III continues to grow.

Below, we’ll explain where Title II and Title III apply online, what each title expects, and how those expectations connect to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, the primary benchmark for ADA website compliance. We’ll also outline the practical steps needed to meet those obligations so you can reduce legal risk while improving accessibility for the people who rely on your digital services.

Where Title II and Title III Fit in ADA Web Accessibility

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law enacted in 1990 to prevent discrimination and ensure access for people with disabilities. Early enforcement centered on buildings, transportation, and other physical spaces.

Today, much of that same activity happens online. People pay taxes, renew licenses, book appointments, manage benefits, and purchase services through websites and apps. In practice, those digital experiences carry the same access expectations as a front counter or an office doorway. ADA web accessibility requirements are now a core part of how access is measured.

The ADA is organized into five main titles.
- Title I addresses employment.
- Title II applies to state and local governments and their services.
- Title III applies to private businesses that serve the public.
- Other titles address areas such as telecommunications and enforcement.
For digital accessibility, Title II and Title III are the pieces that shape most decisions. A city website, a public university portal, or a transit app is treated as a public program. A retail site, a banking platform, or a healthcare portal is treated as a public accommodation. If your organization offers services online in either context, those experiences sit within the ADA’s scope. Misunderstanding which title applies does not change that responsibility, it only makes planning, prioritization, and risk management more difficult than it needs to be.

In real terms, that includes your public website, authenticated portals, mobile apps, online forms and workflows, PDFs and office files, embedded media players, chat tools, maps, and booking systems. If someone needs it to complete a task with you, it needs to be usable with assistive technologies and aligned with modern digital accessibility expectations.

Who Title II Covers for Government Web Accessibility

Title II applies to state and local government entities and to the programs and services they provide. That includes:
- City and state agency websites
- Public schools, colleges, and universities
- Public transit systems and trip-planning tools
- Courts, election portals, and public records systems
- Public hospitals, health departments, and benefit portals
Many of these services run on vendor-built platforms or include third-party modules for payments, scheduling, or forms. When a public entity relies on outside providers, accessibility responsibilities do not stop at the agency boundary. Agencies and vendors are responsible for delivering digital services that meet the same standards, so Title II web accessibility becomes a shared concern.

For public entities, federal requirements are now explicit. In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice set WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the accessibility benchmark for government websites and mobile applications and attached firm timelines:
- Larger entities must comply by April 24, 2026.
- Smaller entities and special districts must comply by April 26, 2027.
These expectations cover the full digital service, not just the main site. If a resident needs to complete a permit application, pay a bill, download a form, or check case status online, that journey needs to work with screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, and other assistive tools.

This has pushed many agencies to treat accessibility as part of digital governance rather than a side project. Design systems, content guidelines, vendor contracts, and remediation plans are being aligned to WCAG 2.1 Level AA because the standard is now clearly tied to Title II obligations. For public entities, there is no longer any ambiguity about the technical standard federal regulators will use when reviewing digital services or ADA web accessibility compliance.

How Title III Applies to Private Websites, Apps, and Digital Services

Title III covers public accommodations, which includes most private organizations that offer goods or services to the public. That list spans retail, eCommerce, hospitality, banking and financial services, healthcare, fitness and recreation, professional services, museums, and private colleges and universities.

The ADA does not write a technical accessibility standard into the text for these businesses. In practice, however, courts and the Department of Justice repeatedly look to WCAG 2.1 Level AA when they evaluate whether a site or app meets effective communication and equal access requirements. Website accessibility cases, including recent decisions that treat websites as places of public accommodation, are built around this expectation.

For many organizations, Title III shows up through demand letters, lawsuits, or settlement negotiations that center on digital journeys. The focus is rarely on a single static page. It is on flows that matter to customers:
- Is the full checkout flow usable for someone navigating with a screen reader?
- Can someone using a keyboard manage their account or update billing details?
- Are users able to schedule appointments, request support, or apply for services without getting stuck in the process?
If those paths fail, the business function fails for that user. That is the point where legal exposure increases and trust erodes. It is also where accessibility work is most visible to regulators, plaintiff firms, and users themselves.

There is no fixed federal deadline for private entities. Instead, risk is continuous. New campaigns, visual refreshes, marketing widgets, and third-party integrations can reintroduce barriers at any point. Building and maintaining alignment with WCAG 2.1 Level AA across your core templates, components, and user journeys is the most dependable way to manage Title III risk, support ADA website compliance, and serve users who rely on assistive technologies every day.

Shared Goals, Different Paths for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

Both titles are grounded in the same idea: people with disabilities should be able to use your services in a comparable way to everyone else. The gap lies in how expectations are spelled out and how they are enforced.

Under Title II, public entities have a defined technical standard and clear dates. WCAG 2.1 Level AA is written directly into federal requirements, which gives agencies a specific target for their websites and apps. That clarity supports long-term planning. Teams can tie budgets, staffing, and remediation schedules to a known expectation and build digital accessibility into their broader compliance programs.

Under Title III, technical details are shaped more by case law and agency guidance than by statute text. WCAG 2.1 Level AA still functions as the reference point, but it appears in consent decrees, settlement agreements, and court decisions. Private organizations have more freedom in how they build their accessibility programs, yet far less freedom in the outcome when users cannot complete essential tasks. The question regulators and courts ask is simple: can people with disabilities use the digital service as intended?

For your digital experience, this leads to the same practical conclusion. Accessibility work cannot stop at isolated pages or one-time audits. It needs to follow the paths users actually take:
- Finding content through navigation and search
- Signing in or creating an account
- Filling out and submitting forms
- Completing payments or purchases
- Accessing support, documentation, and media
If these journeys hold up for people using screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, magnification, voice input, and other assistive tools, you are in a stronger position under both Title II and Title III. That alignment also gives you a consistent way to talk about ADA compliance internally: not as a separate legal track, but as part of delivering reliable, accessible digital services.

A Practical Roadmap for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

To move from legal language to day-to-day work, you need a structure that fits how your teams already build and release digital products. The outline below can be adapted to the size and complexity of your environment.

1. Clarify How the ADA Applies to You

Determine whether you are operating as a public entity, a private business, a technology provider to public entities, or some mix of these. Document this clearly. It will shape which enforcement context applies, how you talk about risk internally, and what kind of evidence you need to demonstrate alignment with Title II or Title III and related ADA web accessibility requirements.

2. Map Your Full Digital Surface

List every public-facing asset a user might rely on. Include your main site, microsites, campaign pages, portals, mobile apps, and document libraries. Add the third-party pieces that sit in critical paths, such as booking engines, payment services, chat tools, video players, and embedded forms. If users depend on it to complete a task, it belongs in scope for accessibility work and ADA website compliance.

3. Audit Against WCAG 2.1 Level AA

Combine automated scanning with targeted manual testing. Use automation to find recurring issues across templates, such as color contrast problems, missing form labels, or non-descriptive link text. Use manual testing to check keyboard operation, screen reader behavior, focus handling in dialogs, error messages, and dynamic content. Start with the journeys that matter most to your organization and your users, such as account access, applications, and checkout.

For organizations looking for a structured model, you can explore our accessibility audit process, which shows how automated scans and expert testing work together.

4. Prioritize Remediation by Impact

Not every issue carries the same weight. Address blockers first by fixing controls that don’t respond to the keyboard, adding accessible labels to forms, correcting navigation that traps focus, and rebuilding interactive components with proper semantics.Then resolve issues that affect structure and consistency, such as heading hierarchy, landmark use, reusable component patterns, and document templates. This order improves usability quickly while also laying groundwork for long-term digital accessibility and maintainability.

5. Integrate Accessibility Into Delivery

Fold accessibility into existing processes instead of treating it as a separate layer. Add accessibility criteria to design reviews, user stories, acceptance criteria, and QA checklists. Make sure your design system or component library encodes WCAG 2.1 Level AA expectations so new work inherits accessible patterns instead of reinventing them. This is how you prevent regressions instead of chasing them and keep ADA web accessibility requirements connected to everyday decisions.

6. Align People and Vendors Around Shared Expectations

Everyone who touches your digital experience plays a role, from visual design and UX to engineering, content creation, and testing. Provide role-specific guidance so each group understands the decisions they own. For external partners, write explicit accessibility requirements into contracts, including alignment with WCAG 2.1 Level AA and support for any Title II or Title III obligations you carry through that relationship.

7. Monitor, Document, and Adjust

Treat accessibility as an ongoing quality measure. Schedule regular scans and focused reviews, especially around major releases, redesigns, or platform changes. Track issues, fixes, and regressions alongside other key metrics. Provide a channel for users to report accessibility problems and treat that input as a signal for pattern-level improvements, not just small fixes. Thorough documentation of this work also helps demonstrate due diligence if your organization ever faces complaints or legal scrutiny around ADA website compliance.

Regardless of whether your primary obligations arise under Title II, Title III, or both, the goal is the same. People with disabilities should be able to use your digital services confidently and independently. Centering work on WCAG 2.1 Level AA, critical user journeys, and repeatable workflows gives you a practical way to honor that goal and meet your ADA web accessibility responsibilities at the same time.

Using Title II and Title III Insight to Shape Sustainable Accessibility

Accessibility work isn’t simple, and it rarely begins with a perfect map. Most teams step into it while juggling releases, supporting users, and keeping digital services running. Getting clear on whether Title II, Title III, or both apply gives that work direction. It removes guesswork and helps teams invest effort where it matters most.

From there, the work becomes more manageable. When teams clarify their obligations and anchor their work to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, they keep accessibility progressing with the platform rather than trailing it.

You don’t have to navigate that alone. At 216digital, we help organizations translate ADA requirements into practical accessibility strategies that fit their workflows, technical environments, and long-term goals. To take the next step, schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. We’re here to support your team and help you build digital experiences that work for everyone.
Greg McNeil

December 15, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Title II, ADA Title III, ADA Website Compliance, Title II, Title III, Website Accessibility
How Accessibility Helps Your Site Thrive in AI Search
Not surprisingly, organic traffic is becoming harder to predict, even when rankings remain steady. Search results are answering more questions directly, especially through AI Overviews, which means fewer users need to click through to individual pages. Gartner has suggested that traditional search volume could decline by around 25% by 2026, a pattern many teams already see reflected in their analytics.

These shifts in AI search are happening fast, and staying visible now means doing more than waiting for users to show up. A big part of this shift is how clearly your site presents information as a reliable source. For organizations that rely on search visibility, this is a major change and puts new focus on something many teams have overlooked: web accessibility.

From Blue Links to Answer Engines

Search behavior is changing in ways that affect your visibility. Google’s AI Overviews now show up in over 60% of searches, according to Xponent 21, so many users get their answers at the top of the page before looking at links. People are also starting their research in new places. Adobe Analytics found a 4,700% year-over-year jump in traffic to U.S. retail sites from AI tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity by mid-2025. This shift helps explain why your analytics might feel unpredictable, even if your keyword rankings stay the same.

Ranking still matters, but it no longer guarantees attention like it used to. Now, the key question is whether your page is clear and well-structured enough to be included in the answers users see first—often before they even think about visiting your site.

AEO and GEO in the Age of AI Search

Answer Engine Optimization centers on preparing content so that answer engines recognize it as a reliable source. It focuses on clarity, structure, and directness because these are the signals systems rely on when assembling summaries.

Generative Engine Optimization is similar, but it focuses on large language models. When someone asks an AI assistant a question related to your work, GEO checks if the assistant can understand your content well enough to use it. Often, pages that are good for AEO are also good for GEO, since both rely on clear organization and predictable markup.

Both frameworks share a practical requirement: information needs to be arranged in a way systems can understand without guesswork. Headings that follow a sensible hierarchy, concise explanations near the top of a section, and consistent semantic HTML help models determine how topics relate and which sections belong in the answer they produce.

Why Accessibility Improves AI Search Discoverability

This is also where accessibility carries more influence than many teams expect. WCAG-conformant sites already use patterns that support machine understanding: clear hierarchy, descriptive labels, consistent navigation, and stable markup. These fundamentals help people move through a site, and they help automated systems interpret its structure with greater confidence.

The connection shows up in the data. A Semrush analysis of 10,000 websites found that WCAG-compliant sites gained 23% more organic traffic and ranked for 2 more keywords than non-compliant sites. Many teams see similar improvements when they strengthen accessibility. The site becomes easier to navigate, the content becomes easier to interpret, and systems can use that information with more accuracy.

As AI Overviews, chat tools, and assistants become more important for finding information, accessible sites offer the clarity and consistency these systems need. The more predictable your site’s structure is, the more likely your content will be understood, trusted, and reused in modern search experiences.

How AI Tools “Read” Your Pages More Like Assistive Tech

AI systems do not see websites the way people do. They read the code. In many ways, they act like non-visual users, depending on HTML structure, headings, landmarks, labels, and text alternatives to understand meaning and relationships. Because of this, accessibility can influence AI search results more than many teams expect.

Clear structural cues reduce uncertainty for machines:
- Headings define topic boundaries and hierarchy.
- Landmark regions separate main content from navigation and repeated interface elements.
- Meaningful link text provides context when read out of sequence.
- Alt text turns images into usable information.
Accessibility research reinforces the value of this clarity. Sites without strong accessibility foundations can see an estimated 20 to 30% loss of traffic to AI-driven discovery tools.

JavaScript-heavy builds introduce additional risk. Many AI crawlers rely on the initial HTML and may not execute client-side scripts consistently. When essential content only appears after rendering, it can be missed. Server-side rendering, static generation, and pre-rendering help ensure that core content is visible to both assistive technologies and AI systems.

Accessibility Foundations That Improve AI Search Understanding

Accessibility lays the groundwork for how both people and automated systems understand a page. These practices give AI tools a cleaner map of the page, so it is easier to tell what each section is about and how they connect. When these elements are in place, a site becomes easier to navigate and easier for models to interpret with confidence.

Semantic Structure and Headings

A single descriptive H1 supported by a clear H2 and H3 sequence helps define the outline of the page. This hierarchy shows how ideas fit together, where one topic ends, and another begins. For pages that answer common questions, using a question-style heading with a direct answer near the top can serve users well and support models that look for natural question-and-answer pairs.

Alt Text for Multimodal AI

Images and diagrams that carry meaning need short, accurate alt text so their purpose is clear. These descriptions help visitors who cannot see the image and help AI systems understand what each visual represents. As multimodal models continue to expand, consistent text alternatives remain an important signal.

Clear Language and Section Hierarchy

Straightforward phrasing and well-organized sections reduce effort for readers. They also reduce uncertainty for AI systems that rely on clean, focused paragraphs to interpret and summarize content. When each block stays centered on one idea and headings reflect the structure beneath them, both audiences can locate the information that matters most.

Logical DOM Order and Keyboard Flow

Logical source order supports keyboard navigation and creates a clear reading path for tools that may not execute every script. Grouping related elements together and keeping navigation patterns consistent helps preserve that clarity across pages. These patterns improve usability and reduce the risk of misclassification by crawlers.

Stability and Performance for Crawlers

Stable pages that load quickly benefit everyone. They reduce the likelihood of timeouts or partial content that can limit what models see. Many performance improvements that support accessibility—such as limiting layout shifts or relying on lighter scripts—also make the page easier for AI systems to access and analyze.

Together, these foundations make the site more inclusive and easier for models to segment, interpret, and reuse content accurately across AI-driven experiences and AI Search results.

Content Patterns That Help Your Site Earn AI Citations

Once the structure is sound, content design determines whether a page becomes a cited source in AI Search and other modern discovery layers.

Shape Sections Around Clear Questions and Direct Answers

Pages that reflect natural-language questions paired with direct answers match with conversational prompts used in AI Search tools. Purposeful FAQ sections often perform well when they address specific user needs rather than serving as content dumping grounds.

Use Lists When They Strengthen Understanding

Lists and step-by-step formats break information into clean units that AI systems can reuse. They work especially well for processes, comparisons, and summaries.

Write With Precision So Content Is Easy to Interpret

AI systems favor content that is specific and free of vague claims. A warm, natural voice combined with concrete language improves comprehension for both people and machines.

Expand Sections With Helpful Detail Instead of Extra Filler

Pages that include definitions, context, and edge cases provide richer material for AI systems to evaluate and reference.

Schema Markup Signals That Strengthen AI Search Interpretation

Schema adds an extra layer of meaning that supports the work already done through accessible structure. It helps automated systems understand what type of content a page contains, how sections relate to each other, and when a page offers information that can answer specific questions. When used alongside well-defined headings and well-organized content, schema gives AI-driven tools a more complete picture of the page.

Focus on the formats that add the most value.
- Article schema works well for long-form guides that explain a topic in depth.
- FAQ Page schema is helpful when a page includes genuine question-and-answer pairs that reflect actual user intent.
- HowTo schema supports instructional content where each step has a purpose and appears in a consistent order.
What matters most is alignment between the schema and the visible content. The structure described in the markup should match what someone sees on the screen. When the content within the schema reflects the real wording and the real sequence on the page, it becomes a strong confirmation signal for systems that depend on accuracy to generate reliable responses.

Research from OpenAI, Google, and Bing shows that large language models benefit from pages that combine semantic HTML with structured data. Schema does not replace accessible code or strong writing, but it can reinforce the clarity already present. When the foundation is solid and the markup supports it, pages are easier for both people and automated systems to interpret and reuse.

Practical Steps to Improve Accessibility and AI Search Performance

You do not need a brand new site or a big replatform to prepare for what is coming. Teams that adapt well usually start small, with a few important templates, a focused audit, and clear patterns they can use again.

Start With an Accessibility and Discovery Audit

Begin with a short list of pages that already matter to your business. Core service pages, high-performing blog articles, and pages that answer common customer questions are the best place to start.

Review these pages through two lenses. First, run automated accessibility checks to surface issues with headings, alt text, landmarks, and link clarity. Then, test how those same pages appear in AI-driven environments by searching real user questions in Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Bing Copilot.

This establishes a practical baseline for both accessibility and AI Search visibility.

Repair Structure Before Adding Content

Fix your heading order, make sure the DOM is logical, and clearly define navigation and main content areas. These steps reduce confusion for assistive technologies and help AI systems read your content more reliably.

Shape Content Around Real Questions

Add focused FAQs where they make sense. Use question-style subheads followed by clear answers early in each section. Break dense explanations into smaller units that are easier to extract and reuse.

Use Schema to Reinforce Clarity

Apply Article, FAQPage, or HowTo schema only when it accurately reflects the visible content. Schema works best as confirmation, not decoration.

Monitor and Maintain

Accessibility and AI readiness are not one-time efforts. Regular checks, shared patterns across teams, and ongoing monitoring help prevent regressions as content evolves.

Accessibility as a Long-Term Strategy

Search is changing, and teams everywhere are still learning how to work in an environment shaped by AI summaries, conversational queries, and systems that select only a handful of sources. There is no perfect playbook yet. Teams are still learning what long-term visibility will require as AI Search matures.

What we do know is that accessibility helps. Clear structure, predictable markup, meaningful alternatives, and human-centered content give people a better experience, and they give machines the signals they need to interpret information with confidence. These fundamentals place your site on steady ground as AI Search continues to expand.At 216digital, we help teams build this foundation. We can work with you to create a strategy that brings WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development plans in a way that fits your goals and workflow. If you want to see how our experts can help you create and maintain an accessible website that meets your business goals and your users’ needs, schedule a free ADA Strategy Briefing today.
Greg McNeil

December 11, 2025

Web Accessibility Remediation

Accessibility, AI search, AI-driven accessibility, SEO, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
How Developer-Led Accessibility Breaks the Fix Cycle
Accessibility issues tend to surface in the same areas over and over again. Custom components. JavaScript-driven UI states. Forms and dialogs that behave differently depending on the input method. When these issues are addressed late, teams often fall into a familiar pattern: audit findings, rushed fixes, and regressions in the next release. These are common accessibility remediation problems across modern frameworks.

Developer-led accessibility helps break that cycle by tying accessibility work to the systems that actually create these behaviors. Instead of patching individual pages, teams fix the patterns that generate them.

We will look at how that plays out in real code, why it leads to more stable releases, and how developers can move accessibility earlier in the workflow without slowing delivery. For many teams, a shift-left accessibility approach reduces rework and makes remediation easier to schedule.

Where Accessibility Issues Come From in Modern Codebases

Most production websites are not built from a single source. A rendered page is usually assembled from component libraries, client-side routing, CMS output, third-party scripts, and legacy templates that survived past migrations. The browser does not distinguish between these sources. Assistive technologies only interact with the final DOM and its behavior.

Many accessibility failures are not obvious in static markup. A WCAG 2.1 Level AA audit often surfaces these issues as failures in names, roles, states, and focus, even when the underlying visual design looks correct. A button may exist but lack a usable accessible name. A dialog may render correctly but fail to manage focus. A form may display errors visually without exposing them programmatically. These issues show up because of how elements are wired together at runtime.

When issues get fixed at the page level, the underlying pattern doesn’t change. The same component or utility keeps producing the same output, and the problem comes back as soon as new code ships.

Why Developer-Led Accessibility Creates More Stable Fixes

When developers lead accessibility remediation, fixes land in places with the most leverage. A change to a shared component, utility, or template improves every instance that depends on it.

For example, enforcing accessible naming in a button component removes ambiguity for screen reader users across the application. Fixing focus handling in a dialog helper eliminates keyboard traps in any flow that uses it. Correcting label and error relationships in a form input component improves every form without additional effort.

These fixes line up with how browsers expose accessibility information. Screen readers interpret roles, names, states, and focus order directly from the DOM. When those signals are correct at the component level, behavior stays consistent and is easier to verify during testing.

The core value of developer-led accessibility is that it treats accessibility as a system property rather than a checklist item.

In-Source vs Post-Source Accessibility Remediation

In most production stacks, accessibility issues do not come from a single layer. A page is often the result of React components, older templates, CMS output, and third-party widgets working together. The browser only sees the DOM that falls out of that mix.

In-source remediation targets the code that generates that DOM. This includes design systems, component libraries, templates, and application logic. It is the most durable option because it prevents the same defect from being reintroduced.

Post-source remediation applies changes later in the pipeline. This might involve middleware, edge logic, or transformation layers that adjust markup and behavior before it reaches the browser. These fixes still use standard web technologies, but they live outside the primary codebase.

In-Source Remediation in Shared Systems

In-source changes work best when a shared component or template is responsible for the defect. If a button component never exposes an accessible name, every new feature that imports it will repeat the same problem. Updating that component once improves every usage and reduces duplicate fixes in the product code.

The same applies to dialogs, menus, and form inputs. When the base patterns handle names, roles, states, and focus correctly, engineers spend less time revisiting the same problems in each feature.

Post-Source Remediation in Live Environments

Post-source work is useful when a team cannot change the source safely or quickly. Older views, vendor widgets, and mixed stacks are common examples. Adjusting the rendered HTML can stabilize heading structure, regions, ARIA, and focus without waiting for a full refactor.

W3C’s guidance on roles, responsibilities, and maturity models reflects this reality. Both in-source and post-source approaches can be effective when developers own the logic, changes are version-controlled, and results are tested with assistive technologies.

Most teams need both paths. In-source fixes reduce long-term risk. Post-source fixes stabilize critical paths when upstream systems cannot be changed quickly. Because post-source work sits closer to the rendered output, it is also more sensitive to upstream change and needs clear ownership and a plan for how long each fix will remain in place.

When Post-Source Remediation Is the Right Approach

There are common scenarios where fixing issues at the source is not immediately possible. Legacy templates may still power revenue-critical flows. Third-party widgets may ship their own markup and behavior. Ownership of rendered output may be split across teams or vendors.

In these cases, post-source remediation can address meaningful barriers without waiting for a full refactor. Developers can rebuild heading and landmark structure, normalize ARIA roles and states, reinforce label and error relationships, and stabilize focus order so users can complete tasks without interruption.

When In-Source Fixes Are Blocked

Post-source remediation is usually a fit when at least one of these conditions holds:
- A legacy view still handles checkout, account access, or other critical flows.
- A third-party component ships markup and behavior you cannot safely fork
- Multiple systems contribute markup to the same route with no clear upstream owner.
- A legal or policy deadline lands before refactor work can start.
In these situations, narrow, well-defined transforms are more reliable than broad rewrites. Small, targeted changes to structure and naming often deliver the most impact for users.

Keeping Post-Source Work Maintainable

Post-source logic is still code. It should live in source control, go through code review, and be covered by tests the same way other production changes are. When templates or components evolve, these transforms must be updated. That means monitoring upstream changes and validating the combined result, not just the injected layer on its own.

Teams that manage this well treat post-source logic as temporary and track which fixes should eventually move upstream. This prevents the remediation layer from becoming a permanent shadow codebase and keeps the focus on stabilizing the experience while longer-term improvements move through the backlog.

Used this way, post-source remediation acts as a bridge, not a replacement for healthier patterns closer to the source.

How Automation Supports Developer-Led Accessibility

Automated accessibility tools are effective at detecting repeatable failures. Missing labels, invalid attributes, color contrast issues, and empty links are all well-suited to automated checks. These tools are useful for regression detection and baseline coverage.

Automation does not evaluate intent or usability. It cannot tell whether link text makes sense when read out of context, whether focus returns to a logical place after a dialog closes, or whether a live region announces information at a useful moment. Many failures that matter for WCAG 2.1 compliance, especially those related to names, roles, states, and focus, rely on human judgment.

These decisions require a clear picture of how the interface is supposed to work. Developers already make similar calls around performance, security, and reliability. Accessibility fits into that same category of engineering quality.

For that reason, developer-led accessibility relies on automation as feedback, not as the final decision-maker.

Shift-Left Accessibility in Everyday Development

Moving accessibility earlier doesn’t mean reworking your process. Small, targeted adjustments to your current workflow are often enough.

Shared components are the most effective leverage point. When buttons, dialogs, menus, and form controls ship with accessible defaults, teams avoid reintroducing the same issues. Code reviews can include quick checks for naming, focus behavior, and keyboard access, the same way reviewers already check for errors or performance concerns.

Component Defaults That Carry Accessibility

Most repeat accessibility bugs trace back to a handful of primitives. A button with no useful name. A dialog that loses focus. A form that surfaces errors visually but not programmatically. Each time those show up in product code, they point back to patterns that need to be fixed once in the shared layer.

Pulling these concerns into components reduces the number of places engineers need to remember the same details. The component carries the behavior. Feature code focuses on user flows.

Checks That Support, Not Overwhelm

Automation works best when it supports these habits. CI checks should focus on failures that map clearly to real barriers and provide actionable feedback. Too much noise slows teams down; tight, focused checks help them move faster.

Late-stage fixes should also feed back into this process. If the same issue keeps appearing in production, it signals a pattern that needs attention closer to the source.

For most teams, developer-led accessibility ends up looking like other quality practices: defaults in components, a few reliable checks, and reviews that treat accessibility as part of correctness, not an add-on.

How Developer-Led Accessibility Reduces Rework

The fix cycle persists when accessibility sits in its own phase. Findings arrive late. Fixes ship under pressure. New features reuse the same patterns, and the next review surfaces similar issues.

developer-led accessibility changes that pattern by tying remediation to the systems that create UI behavior. Over time, fewer issues reach production. Remediation becomes smaller, more predictable, and easier to schedule. Teams spend less time reacting and more time improving shared foundations.

Audits and testing still have an important role. Their results become easier to use because findings map directly to components, utilities, and templates that the team already maintains.

What Sustainable Accessibility Requires in a Development Workflow

For this approach to work, each team must own its part. Developers define the implementation details. Designers shape interaction models that map cleanly to semantic patterns. QA verifies behavior across input methods. Product and engineering leads plan accessibility alongside feature work instead of letting it slip to the end.

W3C’s roles and maturity guidance point in the same direction: sustainable accessibility depends on consistent responsibilities, repeatable practices, and room to improve them.

Testing with assistive technologies remains essential. Tools and guidelines describe requirements, but usage in practice exposes where behavior breaks down. Short testing sessions can uncover issues that static reviews miss and help teams focus on fixes that matter most.

Once those pieces are in place, developer-led accessibility feels like part of normal development work. Accessibility issues still show up, but they are easier to diagnose, easier to fix, and less likely to come back.

Sustainable Accessibility in Modern Codebases

Developer ownership is the most reliable way to keep accessibility work stable across releases. When fixes land in the systems that define structure and behavior, teams reduce rework, shorten remediation cycles, and ship interfaces that behave consistently for everyone. The combination of in-source improvements, targeted post-source work, and regular assistive-technology testing gives teams a clear path to measurable progress without slowing delivery.

If your team wants help building a roadmap that aligns WCAG 2.1 requirements with your development workflow, 216digital can help you build a roadmap and validation plan. To learn more about how the ADA experts at 216digital can help you build a sustainable ADA and WCAG 2.1 compliance strategy, you can schedule an ADA Strategy Briefing.
Kayla Laganiere

December 10, 2025

Testing & Remediation

Accessibility, Accessibility Remediation, Web Accessibility Remediation, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility
Too Many Cooks in the Website Accessibility Kitchen

If you’ve ever been in a meeting where someone says, “We need to make the website accessible,” you’ve likely seen what happens next. People nod in agreement and add supportive comments like, We should, We will, or Absolutely.

But once the meeting ends, something familiar happens. Everyone thinks someone else will take charge.

It’s like a busy kitchen where skilled chefs come and go, each adding something or making adjustments, but no one is in charge of the recipe. Everyone means well and the ingredients are good, but the final dish never really comes together.

This is what happens with website accessibility in many organizations. People care, but progress stalls because responsibility is spread out, priorities clash, and no one has the full overview.

Most teams don’t struggle because they lack motivation. Many are making an effort by reading articles, joining webinars, updating components, and running audits when possible. The real problem is a lack of clear direction and coordination.

This article explains why accessibility efforts stall when too many people are involved and shows how clearer roles and stronger teamwork turn that chaos into lasting progress.

Why “Too Many Cooks” Happens in Digital Teams

When you look at a typical digital team, the kitchen metaphor fits well. Many teams work on the website, but each faces different pressures, expectations, and ways of thinking.

Compliance teams are focused on risk and timelines. Engineering worries about capacity and technical debt. UX and product teams juggle inclusivity with brand constraints and deadlines. Content and marketing are pushing toward launches, conversions, and SEO. Finance watches budgets and outcomes. Leadership wants clarity on scope, timelines, and how this fits into broader strategy.

All of these concerns are valid and important. But each team works on its own schedule, uses its own language, and aims for different results.

As a result, everyone assumes another team will take charge of website accessibility.

Work moves from one department to another. Decisions are revisited again and again. A simple question like “Who owns this?” can turn into weeks of discussion.

The Hidden Costs of Website Accessibility Gridlock

When ownership is unclear, the effects are widespread, even if they aren’t obvious right away.

Teams create accessibility debt when they layer new pages, features, and campaigns on top of old barriers. Costs rise the longer those issues sit unresolved—especially when a team keeps copying an inaccessible form instead of fixing the original.

There are also legal and reputational risks. Barriers stay in production longer than planned, making complaints or legal action more likely. Even without lawsuits, trust fades when users keep running into the same problems.

Revenue takes a hit, too. About 71% to 73% of users with disabilities will abandon a website immediately when barriers make it difficult to use or navigate. That means fewer completed purchases, booked appointments, and sign-ups, even though analytics rarely identify accessibility as the reason.

Within teams, frustration grows. The unofficial “accessibility person,” usually someone who cares a lot, spends more time seeking approvals and alignment than doing real work. Projects slow down, and the word “accessibility” starts to remind people of stalled projects and extra work.

Finally, organizations can get stuck in endless planning. Meetings repeat the same questions: What’s our goal? Who owns this? What can we do this quarter? All this back-and-forth has its own cost.

The point isn’t to make anyone feel guilty. Almost every organization faces these issues. You’re not alone, and you’re not failing. You just don’t have clear ownership structures yet.

Why Ownership Is Blurry (Even for Teams Who Care)

This gridlock isn’t caused by a lack of effort. It’s caused by how website accessibility has historically been framed.

For years, teams treated accessibility as a “last step” before launch, just another item on a checklist. When everyone pushes it to the end, no one owns it from the beginning.

Leaders often give broad instructions like “Make this WCAG compliant,” but don’t define the scope, metrics, or roles. Each team thinks another group is better suited to lead. Everyone uses different terms: designers talk about usability, compliance teams focus on risk, and marketers care about conversions.

In practice, this leads to vague tickets like “Fix accessibility issues,” QA findings without a clear owner, and stakeholders disagreeing on priorities because there’s no shared framework.

This is where responsibility mapping becomes the turning point.

From Chaos to a Kitchen Brigade: Making Roles Clear

A great way to break the “too many cooks” cycle is to use accessibility responsibility mapping. The idea is simple: divide accessibility work into clear tasks, then assign who leads, who supports, and who should be consulted.

It’s not about adding more bureaucracy. It’s about setting clearer expectations.

The primary owner drives the accessibility task and ensures it is done correctly. Supporting roles contribute the guidance needed to shape the work. Other stakeholders stay involved through consultation or regular updates..

Take headings, for example. UX or content defines structure. Design expresses hierarchy visually. Development implements correct HTML tags. QA verifies assistive technology behavior.

Or consider forms: UX handles flow and labeling strategy; content writes the labels; developers programmatically associate everything; QA checks keyboard and screen reader behavior.

With media, content teams plan captions or transcripts; platform owners ensure video players support accessible controls.

Responsibility mapping doesn’t add more work. Instead, it spreads tasks to the people best suited for each part. Like a well-run kitchen team, everyone knows their role, but they’re all working toward the same goal.

How to Put Responsibility Mapping Into Practice

Getting started is easier than teams expect.

First, bring together the right people: representatives from design, content, development, QA, and those who handle risk or strategy. Focus the conversation on ownership, not on debating every accessibility issue.

Next, list the recurring tasks you handle today: components, content operations, media, core flows, and feature releases. For each one, assign a primary owner, supporting roles, and those who should be consulted or informed.

Then embed this into your actual workflows. Include responsibility fields in ticket templates. Mark design system components with who is responsible for each part. Make it clear who writes and reviews alt text. Start small by applying your new mapping to one important section of the site, like checkout or registration, then refine and expand.

Even small teams benefit. One person may wear multiple hats, but mapping helps distinguish when they’re acting as a designer, developer, or content author. Expectations become visible and realistic.

Collaboration Patterns That Make Website Accessibility Easier

Ownership alone isn’t enough. Teams also need habits that support clarity.

Start by grounding conversations in real user journeys. Instead of diving into tools or checklists, walk through how someone books an appointment or completes a purchase with a screen reader.

Catch issues early by building lightweight, recurring touchpoints into design, development, and QA—not at the end.

Lean on your design system as a shared foundation. Centralize accessible components to prevent barriers from being reintroduced with every new page.

Treat learning as part of the job. Hold quick internal demos, run short show-and-tells, and celebrate when someone removes a barrier. These small habits turn website accessibility from a burden into a shared craft.

And don’t forget to celebrate small wins. They build momentum.

Keeping the Menu Manageable: Sustainable Progress Over Perfection

Teams often worry that starting accessibility means the work will never end. But setting priorities helps keep things manageable.

Begin with the most important flows, like those related to revenue, registration, support, or high-traffic areas. Separate immediate fixes from short-term improvements and long-term changes. Create feedback loops with regular audits, user feedback, and post-release reviews.

Most importantly, change your mindset: website accessibility is ongoing maintenance. Like performance, security, and SEO, it’s part of keeping the site healthy over time, not just a one-time emergency project.

Consistent, steady movement beats big, unsustainable pushes every time.

From Chaotic Kitchen to Well-Run Accessibility Program

Accessibility efforts stall when there’s no clear leader. But things improve quickly when teams clarify roles, base decisions on real user experiences, and use frameworks that help them follow through.

If you feel stuck in “too many cooks” mode, start small. Choose one important user flow and map out who owns accessibility at each step. Or gather a few teammates and assign roles for three to five key components.

If your team has too much on its plate to keep accessibility top of mind, tools like a11y.Radar from 216digital can help. It offers ongoing monitoring, regular scans, and clear dashboards so accessibility stays visible without adding extra work. It quietly finds issues early, before they become rework, barriers, or legal risks, so teams can act on them instead of reacting later.

You don’t have to choose between moving fast and being accessible. With the right structure, support, and tools, your digital team can work smoothly, and accessibility becomes a natural part of everything you deliver—not just another task to juggle.

Greg McNeil

December 9, 2025

Web Accessibility Remediation

Accessibility, Accessibility Remediation, Accessibility testing, Web Accessibility, Web Accessibility Remediation, Website Accessibility
Building an Accessible Website on a Tight Timeline
There is a particular kind of nervous energy that comes with a full rebrand and relaunch. The clock is loud. New visuals are on the way. Navigation is changing. Content is being rewritten, merged, or retired. Everyone is juggling feedback from leadership, stakeholders, and real users—all while trying not to break traffic or conversions.

Under that pressure, it is easy to assume something has to give. Too often, accessibility is pushed into “phase two” or handed to a single champion to figure out later. But it does not have to work that way. With clear goals, reusable patterns, and honest feedback loops, you can ship a fast, stable, truly accessible website even when the deadline feels uncomfortably close.

This article pulls from a real full rebuild on a compressed schedule: what helped us move faster, what we would adjust next time, and how to keep people and performance in focus as you go. Take what is useful, adapt it to your team, and use it to steady the next launch that lands on your plate.

Start with Clarity, Not Wireframes

When time is tight, vague goals turn into stress.

Before anyone opens Figma or a code editor, pause long enough to write down what “launch” actually means:
- “Must launch” goals
  The essential pieces: your new homepage, top-traffic templates, core conversion flows, and basic SEO hygiene like titles, descriptions, canonicals, and redirects.
- “Should” and “Could” items
  Lower-traffic sections, seasonal content, and “it would be nice if…” features. These are valuable, but they belong in phases 2 or 3, not on the critical path.
Then look at your pages with a bit of distance. Instead of a long list in a ticketing tool, create a small priority matrix that weighs:
- How much traffic each page receives?
- How much business value does it drive?
- Which template family does it belong to (homepage → key landing templates → high-intent pages such as pricing, contact, or product flows)
From that view, you can sketch a realistic path to launch. Design, content, and development no longer have to move in a straight line. If your base layout and components are stable, teams can work in parallel instead of waiting on each other.

A few shared tools keep that picture clear for everyone:
- One spreadsheet tracking pages, owners, components, status, and risks
- A living IA map with redirects flagged
- A short daily standup and a twice-weekly issue triage
It sounds simple, but that shared map is often what keeps work grounded and your accessible website from getting lost inside a noisy project.

Designing an Accessible Website from Components Up

On a tight timeline, the design system becomes more than a style guide. It is how you create speed without letting quality slide.

Rather than designing one page at a time, start with the building blocks you know you will reuse:
- Hero sections
- Split content blocks
- Tab sets
- Testimonial or quote blocks
- Carousels or sliders
- Form layouts, including error states and help text
For each pattern, accessibility is part of the brief, not an extra pass at the end:
- Keyboard navigation that follows a sensible order and shows a clear, high-contrast focus state
- HTML landmarks—header, nav, main, footer—and headings in a clean hierarchy
- ARIA only where native HTML cannot express the behavior
- Color, type, and spacing tokens that meet WCAG 2.2 AA, so designers don’t have to check contrast on every decision.
Some patterns are easy to get almost right and still end up frustrating people. Tabs, carousels, and accordions deserve extra time: arrow-key support and roving tabindex for tabs, visible pause controls for sliders, and aria-expanded states plus motion settings that respect prefers-reduced-motion for accordions.

Each component gets a small accessibility checklist and a handful of tests. That might feel slower up front. In reality, it frees teams to move quickly later because they trust the building blocks under every new layout.

Tooling That Gives Your Accessible Website Time Back

When deadlines are tight, you want people solving real problems, not chasing issues a tool could have caught.

Helpful habits here include:
- Local linting and pattern libraries
  Linters for HTML, JavaScript, and ARIA catch common mistakes before a pull request is even opened. A component storybook with notes about expected keyboard behavior and states makes reviews quicker and more focused.
- Automated checks in CI
  Your pipeline can validate HTML, identify broken links, verify basic metadata, generate sitemaps, and ensure images have alt text where they should.
- Performance budgets
  Agree on reasonable thresholds for LCP, CLS, and INP. When a change pushes you over those limits, treat it as a real regression, not an item for “later.”
After launch, continuous accessibility monitoring keeps an eye on real content and campaigns as they roll out. Tools like a11y.Radar helps you see when a new landing page, promo block, or plugin introduces a fresh set of issues, so your accessible website stays aligned with your original intent instead of drifting over time.

Browser extensions and quick manual checks still matter. They are often where nuance shows up. But letting automation handle the repeatable checks means those manual passes can focus on judgment and edge cases.

Redirects, Voice, and All the Invisible Decisions

Relaunches tend to stir up every piece of content you have: long-running blog posts, support docs, landing pages, one-off campaign pages, and forgotten PDFs. How you handle that swirl directly affects real people trying to find what they need.

Structurally:
- Map each old URL to a new destination and set permanent redirects.
- Validate redirects in bulk so you do not discover broken flows after users do.
- Align internal links and breadcrumbs with your new IA so pathways feel more consistent and less random.
For the words and media themselves, think about what it feels like to scan a page while using a screen reader, magnification, or a mobile phone in bright light:
- Write alt text that explains the role of an image, not just what it looks like.
- Add captions and transcripts where you can, especially for core video and audio.
- Keep headings short and clear.
- Use link text that tells people where they are going next.
Right before you publish, do a quick sweep for titles, descriptions, open graph tags, canonicals, and analytics events. It is basic hygiene, but it protects the hard work you have put into the content itself.

This is also where roles matter. Someone needs to own copy approval, someone needs to own accessibility checks, and someone needs to own analytics and SEO. Clear lanes keep decisions moving and protect the tone and clarity of the experience you are building.

Turning Design Files into Real-World Performance

At some point, everything leaves Figma and lands on real devices with real network constraints. That moment is where a site either feels light and responsive or heavy and fragile.

A few choices make a big difference:
- Plan how assets will travel from design to production: icon systems, responsive images with srcset and sizes, and modern formats where they help.
- Keep CSS lean by shipping critical styles first and deferring the rest, rather than loading everything at once.
- Be intentional with JavaScript. Lean on native controls when you can, split code where it makes sense, and defer non-essential scripts until after people can read and interact with core content.
Before launch, run tests that look like your users’ reality, not just the best-case lab profile: mid-range devices, slower networks, busy pages. Watch not just the scores but how quickly the page feels usable.

These choices shape how your accessible website feels in everyday use—how quickly someone can read an article, submit a form, or complete a checkout without fighting the page.

QA Loops That Protect Real People

QA is where all the decisions made along the way show up side by side. When time is short, it can be tempting to “spot check a few pages” and call it done. That almost always hides something important.

A lightweight but focused plan works better:
- A keyboard-only pass through each template type to confirm you can reach everything, see focus at all times, and escape any interactive element without getting stuck.
- Screen reader checks using common setups—NVDA or JAWS with a browser on Windows, VoiceOver on macOS or iOS—especially on interactive components such as menus, tabs, and dialogs.
- Mobile testing with zoom at 200% to confirm content reflows and tap targets are large enough to hit without precision.
Add a regression sweep on your highest-traffic legacy URLs to make sure redirects, analytics, and key flows still behave as expected.

When issues show up, prioritize them by impact, how often they are likely to surface, and how hard they are to fix. High-impact accessibility and performance bugs move to the front of the line. The goal is not a perfect spreadsheet of checks; it is protecting the people who will rely on this build every day.

Ship Fast, Stay Accessible, and Don’t Go It Alone

A fast relaunch does not have to be reckless. With clear priorities, solid components, supportive tools, and a few disciplined feedback loops, you can move quickly and still ship an accessible website that feels thoughtful and dependable.

If you are planning a rebuild—or living through one right now—and want another perspective on your accessibility and performance posture, 216digital can help. Schedule an ADA briefing with our team. We will look at where you are, highlight risk areas, and outline practical next steps that respect your timeline and stack, so you can launch quickly and know your work is welcoming the people you built it for.
Greg McNeil

November 20, 2025

Testing & Remediation

Accessibility, Accessibility Remediation, Accessibility testing, automated testing, Web Accessibility Remediation, Website Accessibility
Email Accessibility Tips for Better Newsletters
Newsletters are still one of the most personal ways to reach people online. They share updates, spark interest, and keep relationships going—all right there in your reader’s inbox. Once the design looks polished and the list is ready, it’s easy to feel like the work is done.

But even the best-looking email can fall short for someone using a screen reader. A missing heading tag, a jumbled reading order, or an unlabeled image can make a message that feels seamless to one person confusing to another.

Email accessibility often gets left behind—not because people don’t care, but because it’s easy to think of it as something separate from web accessibility. In truth, it’s all connected. The same principles that make your website inclusive—clear structure, descriptive alt text, and meaningful markup—apply just as much to your emails.

An accessible email isn’t a bonus feature. It’s a sign of good communication: thoughtful, professional, and built for everyone.

The steps below show how to bring accessibility into your process naturally, without slowing your team down or changing the way you already design and send.

Start with a Strong Foundation

Every accessible email starts with clean, well-structured HTML. A simple one- or two-column layout works best. Multi-column or grid-heavy designs may look great on desktop but can become confusing when read aloud or viewed on mobile.

Keep your code organized so it flows naturally from top to bottom, left to right. When your layout collapses for smaller screens, content should still read in a logical order.

Use semantic markup to structure content:
- <h1>, <h2>, and <h3> tags for headings
- <p> tags for paragraphs
- Avoid using styled <div> elements to imitate headings or sections
If you rely on tables for layout, apply role="presentation" so assistive technologies don’t interpret them as data tables. And try to keep navigation minimal—five or six identical header links can feel repetitive for someone navigating by keyboard or screen reader.

Finally, test your message with images turned off. Many email clients block images by default, so make sure your message still makes sense when visuals are missing.

Make Links and Buttons Clear and Consistent

Screen reader users often jump between links to navigate quickly. That’s why each link should make sense on its own.

Instead of vague prompts like “Click here” or “Learn more,” use language that describes the action:
- “Download our June 2025 Report”
- “View featured products”
- “Register for our next webinar”
For buttons, stick to properly coded <a> tags styled with CSS. If you’re using nonstandard elements, include role="button" and test keyboard functionality. Avoid relying on image-based buttons without text alternatives or ARIA labels.

A few more details to keep in mind:
- When a link opens a page, make sure focus lands in a logical place—at the top or at a key heading, not mid-page.
- Treat unsubscribe and preference links as essential navigation elements. They should be easy to find, clearly labeled, and fully accessible.
Communicate Without Relying on Vision

Images, icons, and videos make emails engaging, but they shouldn’t be the only way you communicate.
- Add descriptive alt text to every meaningful image.
  - Example: <img src="banner.jpg" alt="50% off sale ends July 31">
- For decorative visuals, use empty alt text (alt="") so screen readers skip them.
- Never put important text—like “Register Now” or event details—inside an image unless that information also appears as live text.
If your email includes video or audio, make sure there are captions, transcripts, and accessible controls. Avoid autoplaying media; it can disrupt assistive technology users.

And once again—preview your message with images blocked. It’s one of the simplest ways to catch email accessibility issues before you hit send.

Keep Tables Simple and Purposeful

Tables are sometimes necessary, but they can quickly complicate email accessibility if used carelessly. Before adding one, ask: Could this be a list instead?

If you truly need a data table:
- Use <th> tags for headers
- Identify rows and columns properly
- Avoid merged or nested cells, which confuse screen readers
When a table is only for layout, mark it with role="presentation". In most cases, modern spacing and stacking techniques can replace layout tables without losing visual balance.

Prioritize Readability in Typography and Contrast

Readable text helps everyone—not just users with disabilities.
- Choose simple, widely supported fonts like Arial, Helvetica, or Calibri.
- Set body text at 14–16 pixels with line spacing around 1.4–1.5 for comfort.
- Left-align paragraphs rather than centering or justifying them.
- Maintain color contrast ratios of at least 4.5:1 for body text.
Avoid using color alone to convey meaning. Pair color cues with icons, labels, or underlines. Use emoji and symbols sparingly—they can sound awkward when read aloud by screen readers.

Leave breathing room between sections, and test your email in dark mode to confirm text and background colors remain readable. These small checks can make a big difference in overall legibility.

Reduce Friction with URLs and Attachments

Accessibility isn’t just about visuals—it’s about ease of use.
- Replace long, exposed URLs with descriptive links.
- If you must include a raw link, place it on its own line for clarity.
- Ensure attachments like PDFs are tagged and labeled
- Summarize key information within the email body when possible, so users don’t need to download a separate file.
Always include a plain-text version of your email for users relying on text-only clients or low-bandwidth connections.

Even your subject line and preview text play a role in accessibility. These are the first things a screen reader announces, so be specific:

Instead of “July Newsletter,” try “July Updates: Accessibility Toolkit and Webinar Dates.”

Test as a Natural Part of Your Process

Testing shouldn’t feel like a separate task—it should be part of your regular workflow for email accessibility.

Before sending, confirm that:
- Headings follow a logical hierarchy
- All images include alt text
- Links are descriptive
- Contrast meets WCAG standards
- The message reads naturally with images turned off
Check how your email performs in multiple clients—Outlook, Gmail, Apple Mail—and on different devices. Then, try it with a screen reader like NVDA, JAWS, or VoiceOver. Notice whether headings make sense, focus moves predictably, and buttons behave correctly.

Other valuable tests:
- Navigate using only your keyboard
- Zoom in to 200% and ensure the layout still holds together
- Ask teammates or testers who use assistive tech for feedback
Automated tools can flag issues like missing alt text or low contrast, but human review ensures quality. Once testing becomes routine, email accessibility starts to feel natural—not like an extra step, but part of how you craft great communication.

Email Accessibility: The Message Everyone Can Read

Accessibility works best when it’s built in, not added at the last step. When your structure is clear, headings are properly marked, alt text is descriptive, and links communicate purpose, your message feels effortless—no matter how someone reads it.

That’s what email accessibility really delivers: communication that’s consistent, inclusive, and easy for everyone to engage with. It’s not extra work; it’s smarter work that helps your team create better results with less rework and greater reach.

If you’re ready to strengthen that process, 216digital can help. Schedule an ADA briefing, and we’ll walk through your templates, review your workflow, and show you how to make email accessibility a seamless part of every campaign you send.
Greg McNeil

November 12, 2025

How-to Guides

Accessibility, email accessibility, How-to, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
Thinking About WCAG 3.0? Not So Fast
If you’ve been near a development or compliance conversation lately, you’ve probably heard rumblings about WCAG 3.0. Teams are curious. Vendors are hinting. Leadership wants to know if the roadmap should shift. The September 2025 Working Draft added to that momentum, especially with talk about modern UX considerations, cognitive accessibility, and even early ideas around AI.

It’s encouraging to see this evolution. Still, the best move right now is a steady one: keep an eye on WCAG 3.0, but continue building around WCAG 2.2.

WCAG 3.0 offers potential, but it’s still taking shape. WCAG 2.2 is what organizations can confidently rely on today—from both a practical and legal standpoint.

This overview explains why 3.0 remains a work in progress, why 2.2 is still the right foundation, and how you can stay prepared for the future without redirecting your entire strategy.

WCAG 3.0: Still a Moving Target

At this stage, WCAG 3.0 is a Working Draft, not a finalized rule set. The W3C has been clear that significant pieces will continue to evolve, and some will change before anything approaches a stable release.

Several foundational areas still have unanswered questions:
- Conformance: The draft explores a scoring-based approach and new ways of rating outcomes. It’s an interesting direction, but not locked in.
- Testing and sampling: The methods outlined today are early concepts. They aren’t yet clear enough to support reliable testing requirements or contract language.
- Emerging concepts: Topics like cognitive support, dark patterns, and AI bias are under discussion—not defined in a way that would hold up in a policy meeting or contract review.
There’s real value in following the work and experimenting where it makes sense. It just isn’t mature enough to serve as the basis for compliance decisions. Think of WCAG 3.0 as research and early modeling—not something to build KPIs or procurement language around.

What’s Enforceable Right Now

Most legal and procurement frameworks are still tied to the WCAG 2.x family. WCAG 3.0 isn’t written into laws, vendor requirements, or enforcement mechanisms.

A quick look at the landscape:
- United States – Section 508: The governing rule incorporates WCAG 2.0 Level AA by reference. That’s the enforceable baseline across federal agencies and their acquisitions.
- United States – ADA Title II (state & local): The Department of Justice’s 2024 final rule points to WCAG 2.1 AA for covered web content and mobile apps—again, not WCAG 3.0.
- European Union: The European Accessibility Act relies on EN 301 549, which maps to WCAG 2.1 (with some additions). That’s the practical reference across the EU—especially for procurement.
- Canada: Federal guidance is increasingly steering organizations toward EN 301 549 and WCAG 2.1 AA as standards are being updated.
- Australia: Government guidance and many public bodies state WCAG 2.1 AA as the target. The DDA is the legal backdrop, but day-to-day expectations align with 2.x.
Across these regions, WCAG 2.x remains the documented, enforceable reference. WCAG 3.0 is still too early to factor into risk conversations around litigation, enforcement, or compliance audits.

Separately, the W3C published WCAG 2.2 as a Recommendation in October 2023 and updated it in December 2024. Because policy updates lag behind standards, 2.2 is the most future-friendly version to align with—even if your existing contracts reference 2.0 or 2.1.

In other words: If you’re working toward 2.2, you’re exactly where you should be.

Why WCAG 2.2 Still Deserves Your Focus

WCAG 2.2 is a practical, incremental extension of the 2.x model that many teams already use. It gives organizations meaningful improvements without requiring a re-education effort from scratch.

Some highlights:
- It’s backward-compatible. If you meet WCAG 2.2, you also meet 2.1 and 2.0 (with one exception: 4.1.1 Parsing was retired). This protects existing work and simplifies updates.
- It introduces nine new success criteria targeted at gaps seen in real-world usage:
  - 2.4.11 / 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured and 2.4.13 Focus Appearance support keyboard users more reliably.
  - 2.5.7 Dragging Movements gives users alternatives when drag-and-drop actions are difficult.
  - 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) helps reduce touch-target issues on mobile.
  - 3.2.6 Consistent Help, 3.3.7 Redundant Entry, and 3.3.8 / 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication reduce cognitive friction—especially in forms and multi-step processes.
These updates reflect how people actually use websites today: mobile navigation, mixed input methods, and form-heavy tasks. They also map directly to common user pain points—and, often, legal risk.

If you’re looking for a clear place to invest in accessibility that benefits real users and keeps you aligned with modern expectations, WCAG 2.2 is a safe and productive choice.

Practical Steps for Teams

If you want to make steady progress without guessing what WCAG 3.0 will look like, here are actions that fit well into the next one or two quarters.

1. Audit & Align to WCAG 2.2 AA

Update policy docs, design systems, acceptance criteria, and procurement language to 2.2 AA. Treat it as the organization’s default reference.

2. Test with both automation and humans

Use automated checks to catch the easy wins, then verify with manual reviews and assistive technologies (such as screen readers, keyboard-only access, and voice). That’s how you catch the issues 2.2 emphasizes (focus visibility, target size, redundant entry).

3. Prioritize High-impact Criteria
- Validate keyboard flow and focus visibility
- Confirm headings and ARIA landmarks
- Check that touch targets meet minimum sizes
- Provide alternatives to drag interactions
These are high-impact changes with direct user benefit.

4. Tighten Your Procurement Expectations
- Request VPATs/ACRs that reflect WCAG 2.2 AA
- Add language that requires delivery—not just promises—to help ensure fixes are part of the scope
U.S. federal purchasing still references earlier versions, but using 2.2 now helps you stay ahead.

5. Manage accessibility the same way you manage risk
- Track issues alongside privacy and security
- Prioritize by impact on real tasks (checkout, account creation, navigation paths)
This shifts your focus from theoretical compliance to meaningful outcomes.

6. Close the loop with users
- Invite people with disabilities into testing
- Conduct moderated sessions
- Keep an open channel for feedback
Tools can’t surface everything—lived experience often reveals what automated scans miss.

Keep an Eye on WCAG 3.0 — Without Rebuilding for It

Staying observant doesn’t mean rethinking your roadmap. As you explore new features—especially those involving AI, personalization, or experimental interactions—keep WCAG 3.0 in your periphery.

A balanced approach might include:
- Monitoring W3C updates and Working Draft notes
- Running small internal pilots to explore emerging topics like cognitive support, dark-pattern detection, or algorithmic fairness
- Keeping WCAG 3.0 exploration clearly distinct from compliance or contractual expectations
Think of it as learning ahead—not rebuilding ahead.

Clearing Up a Few Common Misunderstandings

As conversations circulate, a few assumptions come up again and again. It helps to address them directly:

“WCAG 3 will replace WCAG 2 next year”

Draft to adoption takes years. Regulations must be updated before anything becomes enforceable.

“If we wait, we’ll skip extra work”

Delays just increase accessibility debt. Fixing issues under 2.2 now removes work you’d otherwise carry forward.

“WCAG 3 will make compliance easier”

It may someday. Right now, the model is still forming and is more complex than the current structure.

“Once WCAG 3 is out, we can stop paying attention to 2.x”

WCAG 2.x will remain in place for some time. Policies and procurement don’t shift overnight.

“Focusing on 2.2 means we’re falling behind”

The W3C recommends using 2.2 to future-proof your efforts. It’s a forward-looking choice.

Build Habits That Will Carry Forward

The teams that succeed under WCAG 3.0 will already be practicing steady, continuous accessibility—not chasing a checklist of criteria.

Some ways to make that part of your culture:
- Integrate automated checks into your CI/CD workflow
- Gate merges on high-severity issues
- Keep an internal accessibility playbook within your design system
- Run periodic accessibility retrospectives
- Recognize incremental improvements—visible focus, reduced cognitive load, fewer drag-only interactions
Small improvements build momentum and help teams avoid the last-minute scramble when standards evolve.

Prepared for Tomorrow, Grounded in Today

WCAG 3.0 is an exciting step forward, but it’s still evolving. For now, the most reliable and enforceable standards remain WCAG 2.x, with WCAG 2.2 offering the clearest path to stay aligned with both current expectations and future direction.

Focus on the work that helps users today. Continue to test, iterate, and build accessibility into your everyday delivery. You’ll be well-positioned for whatever comes next—without unnecessary disruption.

If you’d like clarity on where your organization stands or where to invest next, our team at 216digital offers personalized ADA briefings and roadmaps rooted in WCAG 2.2, with an eye toward WCAG 3.0 as it matures. We’re here to help you stay confident, compliant, and ready for what’s ahead.
Greg McNeil

October 31, 2025

WCAG Compliance

Accessibility, WCAG, WCAG 2.2, WCAG 3.0, WCAG Compliance, WCAG conformance, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
How Good Is Your Accordion Accessibility, Really?
You’ve seen it before — those long, scroll-heavy pages packed with information. Even with great content, the layout can feel like a wall of text. It’s easy to lose your place. Harder still to stay focused.

That’s why accordions became so popular. They let you tuck sections away, helping people find what matters without forcing them to wade through everything else. They keep things clean, organized, and easier to digest.

But here’s the trade-off: an accordion that isn’t coded for accessibility can lock people out instead of inviting them in. Keyboard users can get stuck. Screen readers might skip entire sections or misreport whether content is open or closed. What looks tidy on the surface can be chaotic behind the scenes.

In this article, we’ll walk through how to build an accordion that’s not just functional but genuinely inclusive. By the end, you’ll understand what good accordion accessibility looks like — and how small development choices make a big difference for real users.

The Anatomy of an Accordion

At its core, an accordion is simple:
- A header or button people click or focus on.
- A content panel that expands or collapses to show details.
These pairs usually live inside a wrapper — maybe a <div> or a <ul> if you want to give screen readers a count of how many sections there are. Adding an aria-label to that wrapper can help clarify that this group of buttons belongs together.

Here’s a basic structure:
```
<ul aria-label="Accordion Control Group">
  <li>
    <button aria-controls="panel1" aria-expanded="false" id="accordion1">Section One</button>
    <div id="panel1" hidden>
      <p>Content for this section.</p>
    </div>
  </li>
</ul>
```
Think of this as the skeleton. Once you have a clear hierarchy, you can start layering in keyboard behavior and ARIA states. Structure isn’t decoration — it’s how assistive technologies understand your layout and read it back to users. That’s the foundation of solid accordion accessibility.

Keyboard Navigation: Where Real Accessibility Begins

The keyboard test is where most accordions fall apart. If you can’t open, close, and move through the component using only a keyboard, something’s missing.

A few simple rules make all the difference:
- Enter or Space should open and close sections.
- Tab should move forward through headings and visible content.
- Shift + Tab should move backward through that same flow.
When a section collapses, focus should jump back to the button that opened it — not vanish into the page. And every focusable element needs a visible indicator, whether that’s an outline or a subtle highlight.

For longer accordions, a “Skip accordion” link above the section is a small courtesy that goes a long way. It lets keyboard users move past the entire block when they don’t need it.

A good gut check? Set your mouse aside. If you can comfortably navigate the entire component using only your keyboard, your accordion accessibility is already miles ahead.

Semantic HTML: Let Meaning Do the Heavy Lifting

A lot of accessibility work is about using the right tools from the start. Semantic HTML gives browsers and assistive tech the information they need without extra code.

Here’s one solid pattern:
```
<h3>
  <button
    type="button"
    aria-expanded="false"
    aria-controls="panel1"
    id="accordion1-button">
    Billing Details
  </button>
</h3>
<div id="panel1" role="region" aria-labelledby="accordion1-button" hidden>
  <p>Your billing information goes here.</p>
</div>
```
This approach works because:
- <button> is already accessible and keyboard-friendly.
- aria-controls connects the button to its panel.
- role="region" helps screen readers describe the area once it’s expanded.
If you add icons or arrows, hide them from screen readers with aria-hidden="true". They’re visual cues, not meaningful content.

When your markup already carries meaning, ARIA becomes a way to enhance — not patch — your accordion accessibility.

Getting ARIA Right

ARIA attributes are what make dynamic elements “talk” to assistive technology. Used well, they keep users informed about what’s changing on screen.

The essentials:
- aria-expanded shows whether a section is open or closed.
- aria-controls links the button to the content it manages.
- aria-hidden keeps hidden content out of the accessibility tree.
- aria-labelledby ties the panel back to its header.
Your JavaScript should keep these in sync. When a section opens, switch aria-expanded to “true” and remove the hidden attribute. When it closes, set it back to “false” and hide the content again.

Add some visual feedback — an arrow that rotates or a smooth transition — so the interaction feels cohesive for everyone.

Good accordion accessibility doesn’t just meet a spec; it creates a consistent, predictable experience no matter how someone browses.

Native vs. Custom: Choosing the Right Path

If you’re building something simple, the native <details> and <summary> tags might do everything you need. They’re semantic, keyboard-ready, and require almost no JavaScript.
```
<details>
  <summary>Return Policy</summary>
  <p>Most items can be returned within 30 days.</p>
</details>
```
The downside? Styling can be limited, and behavior may vary slightly across screen readers — especially on iOS.

For more complex use cases, like multi-step forms or sections that animate open one at a time, a custom setup gives you full control. Just remember that every bit of custom logic means you’re also responsible for maintaining the accessibility that native elements give you for free.

Putting It All Together

Imagine a checkout form split into three collapsible sections: Personal Info, Billing, and Shipping.

Each section uses a button with aria-expanded and aria-controls. Each panel has role="region" and a unique ID. When users open a section, screen readers announce “Billing section expanded,” and focus moves smoothly to the first field.

If JavaScript fails, the content is still visible and usable. That’s resilience — and it’s a hallmark of good accordion accessibility.

When you build this way, you’re not adding “extra” accessibility. You’re writing cleaner, smarter code that works for everyone.

Testing What You’ve Built

No accessibility checklist is complete without testing.

Manual Testing

Use only your keyboard. Confirm that focus behaves as expected and hidden panels can’t be tabbed into.

Screen Reader Testing

Run through your accordion with NVDA, JAWS, or VoiceOver. Listen for clear announcements of “expanded” and “collapsed” states.

Automated Tools

Tools like Lighthouse or WAVE can flag broken ARIA references, missing labels, or overlapping IDs. Automated scans are helpful, but they’re not the finish line. Real users will always notice things an algorithm won’t. The goal isn’t perfection — it’s progress and empathy in practice.

Keep Expanding Accessibility

When built with care, accessible accordions do more than tidy up a layout — they make a site feel calmer, smarter, and easier to use. They’re a small reminder that good code and good experience go hand in hand.

Every time you improve an interactive element, you make the web a little more welcoming.

If you’re ready to take a closer look at your site’s accessibility — from accordions to forms, modals, and beyond — schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. We’ll help you identify where your code stands today and how to make accessibility part of your workflow going forward.
Greg McNeil

October 30, 2025

How-to Guides

Accessibility, accessible accordion, accordion, accordion accessibility, How-to, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility
How Good Is Your Mobile Accessibility, Really?
Mobile accessibility isn’t just about conforming to WCAG guidelines. With most users browsing on phones and tablets, it’s essential that your designs scale, respond, and support every interaction with ease. For teams building interactive components like tabs, modals, and accordions, mobile behavior and overall mobile accessibility are just as important as how things look on a large desktop screen.

Even small design and coding choices — like touch target sizing, color contrast, or label structure — can make the difference between a smooth, intuitive experience and a frustrating one. In this article, we’ll walk through practical ways to fold accessibility into your everyday workflow so every tap, scroll, and swipe feels natural, predictable, and inclusive.

Start with a Solid Responsive Framework

Use Flexible Layout and Relative Units

Building accessibility starts with flexible design foundations. A responsive framework ensures that your layout, text, and controls adapt fluidly to any screen size or orientation. Strong responsive foundations are one of the easiest ways to improve mobile accessibility before you write a single line of JavaScript.

Use relative units like em, rem, %, or vw/vh instead of fixed pixel values. This allows text and elements to scale naturally when users zoom in or change device settings. Avoid rigid containers that break under different resolutions — instead, rely on CSS Grid or Flexbox to help content reflow cleanly.

Set the Viewport and Respect Zoom

Always set your viewport meta tag correctly. Add:

<meta name=”viewport” content=”width=device-width, initial-scale=1″>

This ensures your content fits the screen properly while allowing users to zoom. Never disable user scaling — it’s essential for users with low vision who need to enlarge content.

Test Orientation Changes Early

As your layout takes shape, test orientation changes early. Rotate your device between portrait and landscape to catch:
- Broken layouts
- Cropped images
- Misplaced or partially hidden buttons
Fixing these issues early in the process is far easier than patching them close to launch.

Use Responsive Testing Tools

Finally, make full use of your testing tools. Browser DevTools, responsive modes in Chrome and Edge, and cross-device testing platforms like BrowserStack can help confirm that your site behaves predictably across a range of screens and devices, not just your test phone.

Make Touch Interaction Effortless

Design for Comfortable Tap Targets

Touch interaction is where mobile accessibility truly lives. If users struggle to tap, swipe, or input data, your design loses usability fast — especially in dense interface patterns like accordions and tab sets, where every tap needs to land reliably.

Keep these principles in mind:
- Size matters: Interactive targets should be at least 44x44px (about 7–10mm) — the recommended minimum to help prevent accidental taps.
- Give everything breathing room: Provide enough padding between buttons, links, and icons so people can tap comfortably without frustration.
Keep Gestures Simple and Discoverable

Avoid complex or multi-finger actions without alternatives. Not all users can perform pinch or long-press gestures, so offer single-tap controls or visible UI options that accomplish the same function.

Make Forms Clear and Supportive

When designing forms, think ease and clarity:
- Use tap-friendly toggles, switches, and radio buttons where possible — they’re easier to use than long text fields for many tasks.
- Support autofill so users don’t have to retype predictable information.
- Add clear labels, and use aria-describedby for inline help or error messages so users understand what’s needed without guessing.
Respect Reach and Alternate Inputs
- Think about reach: Frequent actions like “Next” or “Submit” should sit within the natural thumb zone — generally the middle to lower part of the screen.
- Plan for alternate inputs: Make sure your mobile experience is fully navigable using keyboards, styluses, and switch devices. A touch-friendly site should still work well for users who rely on other interaction methods.
When these patterns are in place, complex interactions — including accordions — feel lighter, more predictable, and less error-prone on small screens.

Use Relative Units for Scalable Text and Elements

Scalable typography is one of the simplest ways to improve readability and accessibility. Replacing absolute pixel values with relative units helps your design adapt to user zoom and different display settings.

A few practical habits:
- Favor relative units: Use rem, em, %, and vw/vh for type and spacing rather than fixed pixel values.
- Test at 200% zoom: Zoom your interface to 200%. Text should remain readable, and your layout should stay intact. If it doesn’t, adjust spacing, line height, or font scaling strategies.
- Lean on fluid type: Adopt fluid typography using modern CSS. The clamp() function lets type scale gracefully across screen sizes:
  font-size: clamp(1rem, 2vw + 0.5rem, 1.5rem);
- Avoid fixed positioning for essential content: Pop-ups, modals, or sticky elements should reflow naturally instead of overlapping or disappearing when users zoom or rotate their device.
When text and key UI elements can scale without breaking the layout, more people can comfortably read and interact with your content — regardless of their device or settings.

Build Consistency Into Layout and Navigation

A predictable interface builds user confidence. When navigation, buttons, forms, and interactive patterns like accordions behave consistently, users can move through your app or site with less cognitive load and fewer surprises.

To support that predictability:
- Use semantic HTML to describe structure: Elements like <header>, <nav>, <main>, and <footer> help screen readers and assistive technologies understand your page organization automatically.
- Label icons and actions clearly: If a button uses only an icon, include a descriptive aria-label so its purpose is announced reliably.
- Keep the order and flow logical: Consistent menu placement and button order reduce the learning curve and make navigation easier for everyone.
- Standardize components: Consider building a shared design system or component library. When your buttons, forms, modals, and accordions are built with accessibility baked in, those best practices carry forward across every project and release and directly support stronger mobile accessibility in your product.
Consistency is what turns individual accessibility improvements into a cohesive, trustworthy experience across your entire product.

Refine Color Contrast and Visual Hierarchy

Meet Contrast Ratios for Text and UI

Color plays a big role in mobile readability. Good contrast ensures visibility across different lighting conditions and for users with color vision deficiencies.

Follow the WCAG contrast standards:
- 4.5:1 for normal text
- 3:1 for large text and UI components
- 3:1 minimum for icons, borders, and input outlines
Beyond ratios, test your designs under real-world lighting:
- Bright sunlight
- Dim rooms
- Dark mode
Mobile users interact in unpredictable environments, and contrast that looks great on your monitor may fail in the field.

Use More Than Color to Convey Meaning
- Don’t rely on color alone. Combine color with icons, text, or patterns — for example, pair error messages with red outlines and clear, descriptive text.
- Use hierarchy to guide attention. Thoughtful spacing, font weight, and color contrast help users quickly understand relationships between elements and scan content without extra effort.
Tools like Stark, WebAIM’s Contrast Checker, or built-in accessibility plugins in Figma and Sketch can help you validate your palette before development begins, so you’re not chasing contrast issues late in the cycle.

Provide Strong Text Alternatives

Every image, icon, and multimedia element needs a meaningful text alternative. This is foundational work that has a direct impact on how usable your experience is with assistive technology.

Good practices include:
- Alt text with purpose: Use alt text that describes the content or function of an image. If it’s purely decorative, leave the alt attribute empty so screen readers can skip it.
- Captions and transcripts for multimedia: Even short video clips benefit from lightweight subtitles or transcripts, especially for users in noisy or very quiet environments.
- Name icon-only controls: If your app relies on icons alone, use aria-label or aria-labelledby attributes so each control can be understood by assistive technology.
For expanding sections and other interactive disclosures, accuracy and clarity matter:
- Ensure expanded/collapsed states are exposed to assistive tech.
- Make sure focus moves in a way that feels intuitive for screen reader and keyboard users.
- Confirm that each trigger or header clearly describes the content it reveals.
Validate with Screen Readers

Before launch, run a screen reader check using VoiceOver (iOS) or TalkBack (Android). Listen to how your app is announced — are the labels clear, logical, and concise? If not, revise until the experience feels straightforward and reliable.

Strong text alternatives and well-labeled controls are some of the most important building blocks of mobile accessibility, especially for users who rely on screen readers to navigate touch screens.

Integrate Accessibility Into the Development Process

Start Accessibility Reviews Early

The most sustainable way to maintain accessibility is to make it part of your normal workflow, not an afterthought.

Start early:
- Evaluate accessibility during wireframes or prototypes, not only after development.
- Validate color contrast, layout flow, and focus order while the structure is still flexible — including how components behave for users who depend on assistive tech.
Add Accessibility Checks to Your Pipeline

Automate where it makes sense:
- Use tools like WAVE or Lighthouse in your CI/CD pipeline to catch common accessibility issues before code review.
- Treat failures as signals to improve your shared components and patterns, rather than one-off fixes.
Balance Automation with Manual Testing

But don’t rely on automation alone:
- Automation can’t replicate real user interactions.
- Test with screen readers, high-contrast settings, and keyboard-only navigation.
- Include scenarios that specifically cover key mobile flows — forms, navigation menus, and high-traffic interactive components — alongside other critical interactions.
Make Accessibility a Shared Responsibility

Remember, accessibility is a team effort. Designers, developers, and QA testers should all share visibility into accessibility requirements and results, and understand how their work affects users with disabilities.

Finally, document and iterate:
- Keep a living accessibility checklist for your team.
- Note what worked, what failed, and what needs refinement in future sprints so patterns like menus, dialogs, and other interactive components continue to improve and reinforce mobile accessibility over time.
Keep Improving — and Get Expert Support When You Need It

Accessibility isn’t a finish line. It evolves with new technologies, operating systems, and user expectations. Revisit your mobile experience regularly, especially after framework, library, or OS updates.

Make a habit of:
- Gathering real-world user feedback, especially from people who rely on assistive technology.
- Comparing that feedback with automated test results to uncover gaps that tools miss.
- Continuing to test, train, and refine your approach so accessibility remains second nature for your entire team.
Partner with Experts When It Matters

If you’re ready to strengthen your mobile accessibility strategy and build experiences that feel natural across screen sizes and devices, schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. Our team helps you identify hidden barriers, streamline your workflow, and build digital experiences that stay inclusive across every screen size.
Greg McNeil

October 29, 2025

Legal Compliance, Testing & Remediation

Accessibility, mobile accessibility, mobile apps, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

The New Wave of Pro Se Plaintiffs Using AI

How AI-Generated ADA Complaints Are Built

Drafting the Complaint

Gathering “Evidence”

Reusing Templates

Filing Online

Red Flags That Suggest AI Played a Major Role

AI as Assistive Technology Does Not Change Legal Duties

Where Web Accessibility Lawsuits Are Landing

Building an Accessibility Program That Holds Up

Responding When an AI-Generated Complaint Arrives

Reducing Risk in an Era of AI-Generated Web Accessibility Lawsuits

Where Title II and Title III Fit in ADA Web Accessibility

Who Title II Covers for Government Web Accessibility

How Title III Applies to Private Websites, Apps, and Digital Services

Shared Goals, Different Paths for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

A Practical Roadmap for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

1. Clarify How the ADA Applies to You

2. Map Your Full Digital Surface

3. Audit Against WCAG 2.1 Level AA

4. Prioritize Remediation by Impact

5. Integrate Accessibility Into Delivery

6. Align People and Vendors Around Shared Expectations

7. Monitor, Document, and Adjust

Using Title II and Title III Insight to Shape Sustainable Accessibility

From Blue Links to Answer Engines

AEO and GEO in the Age of AI Search

Why Accessibility Improves AI Search Discoverability

How AI Tools “Read” Your Pages More Like Assistive Tech

Accessibility Foundations That Improve AI Search Understanding

Semantic Structure and Headings

Alt Text for Multimodal AI

Clear Language and Section Hierarchy

Logical DOM Order and Keyboard Flow

Stability and Performance for Crawlers

Content Patterns That Help Your Site Earn AI Citations

Shape Sections Around Clear Questions and Direct Answers

Use Lists When They Strengthen Understanding

Write With Precision So Content Is Easy to Interpret

Expand Sections With Helpful Detail Instead of Extra Filler

Schema Markup Signals That Strengthen AI Search Interpretation

Practical Steps to Improve Accessibility and AI Search Performance

Start With an Accessibility and Discovery Audit

Repair Structure Before Adding Content

Shape Content Around Real Questions

Use Schema to Reinforce Clarity

Monitor and Maintain

Accessibility as a Long-Term Strategy

Where Accessibility Issues Come From in Modern Codebases

Why Developer-Led Accessibility Creates More Stable Fixes

In-Source vs Post-Source Accessibility Remediation

In-Source Remediation in Shared Systems

Post-Source Remediation in Live Environments

When Post-Source Remediation Is the Right Approach

When In-Source Fixes Are Blocked

Keeping Post-Source Work Maintainable

How Automation Supports Developer-Led Accessibility

Shift-Left Accessibility in Everyday Development

Component Defaults That Carry Accessibility

Checks That Support, Not Overwhelm

How Developer-Led Accessibility Reduces Rework

What Sustainable Accessibility Requires in a Development Workflow

Sustainable Accessibility in Modern Codebases

Why “Too Many Cooks” Happens in Digital Teams

The Hidden Costs of Website Accessibility Gridlock

Why Ownership Is Blurry (Even for Teams Who Care)

From Chaos to a Kitchen Brigade: Making Roles Clear

How to Put Responsibility Mapping Into Practice

Collaboration Patterns That Make Website Accessibility Easier

Keeping the Menu Manageable: Sustainable Progress Over Perfection

From Chaotic Kitchen to Well-Run Accessibility Program

Start with Clarity, Not Wireframes

Designing an Accessible Website from Components Up

Tooling That Gives Your Accessible Website Time Back

Redirects, Voice, and All the Invisible Decisions

Turning Design Files into Real-World Performance

QA Loops That Protect Real People

Ship Fast, Stay Accessible, and Don’t Go It Alone

Start with a Strong Foundation

Make Links and Buttons Clear and Consistent