216digital.
Web Accessibility

ADA Risk Mitigation
Prevent and Respond to ADA Lawsuits


WCAG & Section 508
Conform with Local and International Requirements


a11y.Radar
Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance


Consultation & Training

Is Your Website Vulnerable to Frivolous Lawsuits?
Get a Free Web Accessibility Audit to Learn Where You Stand
Find Out Today!

Web Design & Development

Marketing

PPC Management
Google & Social Media Ads


Professional SEO
Increase Organic Search Strength

Interested in Marketing?
Speak to an Expert about marketing opportunities for your brand to cultivate support and growth online.
Contact Us

About

Blog

Contact Us
  • How New U.S. Laws Could Change Accessibility Lawsuits

    Accessibility lawsuits often start the same way. Someone flags barriers on your site, a letter arrives, and your team is asked to respond fast. That moment is rarely tidy. You are dealing with legal exposure, technical facts, and a customer experience problem at the same time.

    Lawmakers are now proposing changes that could affect how these complaints move forward. Some ideas focus on requiring notice and a short remediation window. Others aim to define clearer federal website standards. States are also experimenting with ways to discourage filings they view as abusive. These proposals can change timing and paperwork, but they do not change what users face on the site today.

    Below, we’ll take a closer look at the proposals taking shape and what they may suggest for future enforcement.


    Why Lawmakers Are Pushing for Accessibility Reform

    Across the country, lawmakers are responding to concerns that show up again and again when teams talk about demand letters and claims. Some are about cost and volume. Others are about uncertainty and inconsistent expectations.

    The Pressure From High-Volume Filings

    One of the strongest drivers is the rise in high-volume filings that reuse the same allegations with only minor changes. These accessibility lawsuits regularly target small and mid-sized organizations that already have limited time and budget to respond. Even when a team wants to do the right thing, the first step is often paperwork, outside counsel, and internal coordination.

    Recent data shows how often the same organizations get pulled back in. In 2025, more than 5,000 digital accessibility cases were filed, and over 1,400 involved businesses that had already faced an ADA web claim. In federal court, about 46 percent of filings named repeat defendants.

    Why States Point to Missing Title III Web Standards

    Another driver is the long-running frustration with the Department of Justice’s lack of clear Title III web standards. States point to that gap when explaining why they are stepping in. Without federal regulations, expectations vary by jurisdiction. That creates uneven enforcement and room for conflicting court outcomes, even when the underlying barrier is similar.

    Balancing Litigation Reform and Civil Rights

    It is also important to recognize what private enforcement has done for access. Many of the improvements users rely on today came from individuals asserting their rights and pushing systems to change. Reform proposals often say they are trying to reduce opportunistic litigation without weakening civil rights. At the same time, some disability advocates warn that certain approaches can delay access if timelines stretch too far or if progress requirements stay vague.

    Lawmakers are moving in different directions to tackle these concerns. That brings us to the next question.

    What kinds of changes are actually being proposed?


    Three Legal Changes Shaping Accessibility Lawsuits

    Across federal and state discussions, most proposals about accessibility lawsuits fall into three categories. Each one could influence how demand letters work and how teams respond.

    Federal Notice and Remediation Window Proposals

    Some members of Congress have suggested adding a requirement that a notice be given before a lawsuit can proceed. Under these proposals, organizations would receive a written description of the alleged barrier and a short remediation window to show progress. One example is the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act. It outlines a written notice, a 30-day period to describe improvements, and an additional period tied to demonstrated progress.

    A key nuance matters here. The bill focuses on architectural barriers at existing public accommodations. People often discuss these proposals alongside digital claims, but the text is narrower than many headlines suggest. Even so, the structure signals interest in early notice paired with proof of meaningful action.

    Federal Website Accessibility Standards Proposals

    Alongside notice concepts, Congress is also considering action focused on digital accessibility standards. The Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act of 2025 aims to set uniform expectations for websites and applications. It also directs federal agencies to define standards, update them over time, and clarify how digital access fits within existing civil rights protections.

    If a federal standard becomes established, organizations would have a clearer target to design and test against. That also means teams may have less room to argue that they were unsure what to follow. Day-to-day development, QA, and content workflows would matter more because compliance would depend on consistent results, not occasional one-time reviews.

    State Laws Targeting Abusive Website Accessibility Litigation

    Several states are exploring their own approaches. Kansas has already created a mechanism for determining whether website accessibility litigation is abusive. Courts can consider whether the business attempted to remediate issues within a set period and whether improvements occurred within a ninety-day window. Missouri has introduced similar bills built around notice, remediation timelines, and potential fee shifting for bad-faith claims.

    These laws do not remove the obligation to maintain accessible websites. They focus on how courts should evaluate filings that appear designed for settlement volume rather than user access.


    What May Change in Accessibility Lawsuits and What Will Not

    These proposals could affect the process around accessibility lawsuits, but they do not change the core expectation that users need to complete tasks without barriers. It helps to separate what may shift from what stays the same.

    What May Change

    Organizations may receive more detailed notices that cite specific pages, steps, or interactions. Response timelines may tighten if new regulations define how quickly a team must respond or document progress. Settlement leverage could shift in places where remediation windows, presumptions, or fee-shifting concepts affect how cases are evaluated.

    What Will Not Change

    Users still run into barriers today. A delayed filing does not remove the barrier for someone trying to complete a checkout, submit a form, access account settings, or read essential content. If issues remain unresolved or progress is not measurable, legal action can still move forward. A remediation window is not extra time. It is a countdown.


    Multi-State Website Compliance and Accessibility Risk

    If your website serves users across the country, state-level differences create practical challenges. Exposure does not depend only on where a business is located. It also depends on where users live and which courts may have jurisdiction over a claim.

    How State Approaches Differ

    Florida uses a different model. Organizations can file a remediation plan in a public registry. Courts can consider this plan when evaluating good-faith actions and potential attorney fees in Title III cases filed within the state.

    California has explored a small-business-focused approach, such as a 120-day window to fix issues before statutory damages or fees are available. These experiments show that states are testing different tools to encourage remediation and reduce rushed filings.

    Teams need a repeatable way to keep their sites usable across many jurisdictions.


    Remediation Windows and a 30-Day Response Plan

    A remediation window helps only when teams can move with structure and focus. Without a workflow, the pressure to fix issues quickly can lead to patch-level changes that create new problems. A clear process prevents that and keeps everyone aligned.

    Days 0 to 3

    Capture the notice, save screenshots, and list the URLs and user steps cited. Assign a single internal owner who can coordinate legal, product, and development.

    Days 4 to 10

    Reproduce the issues on the named flows. Test with keyboard and at least one screen reader. Trace the problems back to specific components, templates, or vendor scripts so you can fix the causes, not just page-level symptoms.

    Days 11 to 25

    Run a focused remediation sprint. Prioritize barriers that block task completion. Involve design and quality assurance so that fixes fit your system and avoid new regressions.

    Days 26 to 30

    Retest the affected flows. Capture what changed, when it shipped, and how it was verified. Add any related systemic issues to your backlog with clear owners and target dates.

    This type of workflow reveals the deeper tension behind many of these proposals. Reform can influence pacing, but the work of removing barriers remains the same.


    Legislative Reform and Real Access

    It is understandable that organizations want protection from high-volume filings that feel more like templates than tailored complaints. Responding takes time, budget, and focus, and many teams do not have much of any of those to spare.

    At the same time, disability advocates warn that lengthy remediation windows can delay access. If the standard for demonstrating progress is vague, people with disabilities may wait longer for functional experiences. What matters most is that barriers get fixed and stay fixed.

    This tension is unlikely to disappear. It will continue because expectations around digital access are rising.


    How to Make Website Accessibility Sustainable

    The most reliable way to reduce risk is to keep accessibility work steady and consistent. That includes defining a clear accessibility standard, often WCAG 2.1 AA in practice. It also means keeping a backlog that mirrors actual user journeys and testing flows, rather than focusing only on individual pages.

    Build Around High-Value User Journeys

    A backlog is most useful when it maps to tasks that support the business and the customer. That means prioritizing flows like navigation, product discovery, forms, authentication, and checkout, plus the templates and components that power them.

    Prevent Regressions Between Releases

    Development and content teams benefit from adding monitoring and release checks. This avoids regressions that might otherwise go unnoticed. Documenting testing steps, changes, and verification helps demonstrate good-faith progress if a notice arrives. For many organizations, reviewing vendor risk and third-party scripts is another important control point.

    Track How Regulations Are Evolving

    These practices are becoming more important as regulations solidify. The Department of Justice has already finalized its Title II rule for state and local governments. Although Title III remains unsettled, expectations around digital access are becoming more defined.

    If you’re deciding where to start, focus on the tasks that matter most to users. Improving key tasks protects both customers and teams.


    How Teams Can Stay Ready as Regulations Take Shape

    As lawmakers continue shaping how digital access is defined, businesses deserve guidance that reduces confusion, not adds to it. Clear standards give teams room to plan, improve, and maintain their websites without fear of being caught off guard. They also help shift the conversation away from surprise claims and toward steady, predictable work that fits into normal development cycles.

    If your organization wants help building a reliable accessibility plan that supports long-term stability, 216digital is here for you. Schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing and let’s build a path that fits your team and your goals.

    Greg McNeil

    January 16, 2026
    Legal Compliance
    Accessibility, accessibility laws, Legal compliance, state accessibility laws, Web Accessibility, web accessibility lawsuits, Website Accessibility
  • ADA Demand Letter for Websites: What It Looks Like

    You open your inbox and see an email from a law office. Or a certified letter shows up at your door. It claims your website is inaccessible and says you may be in violation of the ADA. It is not a lawsuit, but it is also not nothing. An ADA demand letter can bring a wave of worry, yet it also gives you information you can use. When you understand how these letters work, you can read them with clarity, check what is accurate, and decide your next steps without fear.

    Two questions usually come up right away. Is the letter legitimate, or is it something else? And what should be in it if it is credible? This article walks through how to recognize the parts of a letter, what each part means, and which details matter when one lands in your inbox.

    A quick note. This is practical guidance, not legal advice. If a letter looks credible, involve counsel as soon as you can.

    First, let’s define what an ADA demand letter is and why the structure matters.

    What an ADA Demand Letter for a Website Is

    An ADA demand letter is a formal notice saying that parts of your website may not be accessible to people with disabilities and could violate the ADA. Letters like this usually outline the issues the sender says they found. Many use Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to describe those issues because it gives them a shared language for barriers such as missing alt text, keyboard traps, or unclear labels. Some letters also request remediation within a set timeframe.

    It helps to understand what an ADA demand letter is—and what it is not. While it is not a lawsuit, it can come before one. It is also not confirmation that the claims are correct, since most letters still require technical validation. And it is not always detailed: some letters are well prepared, while others are brief or contain errors.

    Once you understand the structure, it becomes much easier to read these letters calmly and with purpose.

    The Key Parts of an ADA Demand Letter

    Most website-focused ADA demand letters follow the same pattern.

    • Header and complainant information.
    • Statement of alleged violations.
    • Requested action.
    • Deadline and next steps.
    • Legal references and a signature at the end.

    This structure helps you spot what is strong, what is vague, and what needs validation. You are checking for accuracy and consistency. You are also looking for signals that the sender spent time reviewing your site instead of relying on a template.

    Let’s walk through each section.

    Header and Complainant Information

    The header identifies who is sending the letter and who they represent. It usually lists the attorney’s name, their contact information, the complainant, and the business they are writing to. You should see your organisation’s name and your website’s domain written clearly.

    Capture these details right away.

    Compare the letter’s date to the date you received it.

    Note how it arrived, whether through email or postal mail.

    Look closely at the domain listed. Does it match your active site?

    Check for reference numbers or mention of specific pages.

    A few fast credibility checks can make a big difference. Does the letter spell your business name correctly? Does it give complete contact information? Is the letter signed? If the sender cannot get the name of the site right, it weakens the letter. Copy-and-paste errors also matter, especially if they reference parts of a site you do not have.

    Next comes the core of the letter.

    Statement of Alleged Violations in an ADA Demand Letter

    This section outlines the accessibility concerns the sender claims to have found. Some letters use short bullet points. Others include a short narrative explaining what action failed.

    Many reference common issues such as:

    • Missing alt text on images.
    • Videos with no captions.
    • Color contrast problems.
    • Navigation barriers for keyboard users.
    • Forms are missing labels or error messages.

    The strongest letters include specific URLs, page names, or tasks that could not be completed. For example, could not submit the contact form due to missing labels. Or could not complete checkout because the keyboard could not reach the payment button. These details make validation easier.

    Weaker letters may list generic issues with no URLs or no clear examples. That does not make them false. It simply means you will need a deeper technical review.

    As you read this section, capture the issue, the page or feature, and the impact on the user. Those details help you understand the scope.

    Requested Action in an ADA Demand Letter

    This is the part where the sender lists what they want changed. It usually includes updates to code or templates, adding missing alt text, adding captions to videos, improving keyboard navigation, or correcting form issues. Some letters also ask for an accessibility statement or a better contact method.

    Pay attention to how the request is phrased. Is the sender asking for fixes to a single part of the site or the entire site? Do they point to specific WCAG criteria or make broad references? Both are workable, but specifics help you establish a path for remediation.

    Some letters offer clear, testable actions. Others mix clear requests with broad language. Capture each clear and testable action so your team knows what to validate.

    Deadline and Next Steps

    Most ADA demand letters provide a deadline. It might be framed as a request for a written response or a request for remediation within a set timeframe. Many mention possible escalation if the timeline is ignored.

    Capture the deadline right away. Note whether they are asking for an acknowledgement or a full plan. Short deadlines create pressure, but they do not tell you how long it will take to fix the underlying issues. The timeline in a letter is not the full timeline for responsible remediation.

    Legal References and Signature

    This section usually includes ADA language along with WCAG references. Some letters cite specific success criteria. Others stay broad. WCAG criteria can help frame your validation work, but they are not always complete. Look at whether the issues described are specific enough to test.

    A legitimate letter is usually signed and dated. Formatting should align with the rest of the content.

    Is the Letter Real? A Quick Verification Checklist

    You can often gauge credibility with a short review.

    • Is your business name and website identified correctly in the letter?
    • Are the sender’s details complete so you know who issued it?
    • Is the deadline stated clearly and consistently?
    • Do the listed barriers match actual pages or features on your site?
    • Are there URLs or descriptions of which tasks that could not be completed?
    • Is the letter properly signed and dated?

    There are also green flags and red flags.

    Green flags include specific examples, correct domain information, consistent formatting, and issue descriptions you can validate.

    Red flags include wrong business names, mismatched domains, generic lists with no connection to your site, and pressure to pay right away.

    If a letter appears credible, take it seriously. Capture the details. Validate the sender. Bring in legal counsel and the right internal stakeholders so you can review the claims with care and accuracy.

    How to Move Ahead After an ADA Demand Letter Lands

    Receiving a demand letter can unsettle any team, even those who already understand accessibility and ADA risk. But once you know how to read these letters, the tone shifts. You start to see the structure for what it is. A set of claims to review. A list of pages to check. A timeline to manage. A reminder that accessibility should be cared for across the full lifecycle of your site, not only when a letter arrives.

    If you want support turning the findings from a letter into a clear plan, 216digital can help you integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development roadmap in a way that fits how your team works. To explore what that looks like in practice, you can schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing and talk through your goals with our accessibility experts.

    Greg McNeil

    January 15, 2026
    Legal Compliance
    Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, Demand Letters, Website Accessibility
  • WCAG 3.3.8: Rethinking Passwords, Codes, and CAPTCHAs

    The main login form usually isn’t the problem. It’s everything around it. The retry loop. The MFA branch that forces you to read a code on one device and type it into another. The recovery step that adds a challenge after you’re already stuck. That’s also where “hardening” changes tend to hide—paste blocked, autocomplete disabled, segmented OTP inputs that fight autofill.

    If you’ve ever been locked in a loop because you mistyped once, you already know how quickly “secure” turns into “unusable.” For some users that’s just irritating. For others—people dealing with memory limitations, dyslexia, ADHD, anxiety, or plain cognitive overload—it’s the point where access ends. WCAG 3.3.8 is essentially asking for one thing: don’t make recall or manual re-entry the only route through authentication.


    What WCAG 3.3.8 Actually Requires for Accessible Authentication

    WCAG 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) is easy to misread as “no passwords” or “no MFA.” It’s neither. It’s about whether the user has a path through authentication that does not depend on a cognitive function test. WCAG 3.3.8 focuses on removing authentication steps that rely on memory, transcription, or puzzle-solving when no accessible alternative exists. In practice, you cannot make “remember this” or “retype this” the gate unless you also provide a supported alternative or a mechanism that reduces the cognitive burden.

    What Counts as a Cognitive Function Test in Authentication

    A cognitive function test includes anything that requires the user to remember, transcribe, or solve something in order to log in. That includes remembering site-specific passwords, typing codes from one device into another, or solving distorted text in a CAPTCHA.

    Allowable Alternatives Under WCAG 3.3.8

    Under WCAG 3.3.8, a cognitive function test cannot be required at any step in an authentication process unless the page provides at least one of these options:

    • An alternative authentication method that does not rely on a cognitive function test
    • A mechanism that assists the user, such as password managers or copy and paste
    • A test based on object recognition
    • A test based on personal non-text content that the user previously provided

    Object recognition and personal content are exceptions at Level AA, yet they are still not ideal for many users with cognitive or perceptual disabilities. From an inclusion standpoint, it is better to avoid them when a simpler option exists, such as letting the browser fill in credentials or using passkeys.

    This applies to authenticating an existing account and to steps like multi-factor authentication and recovery. It does not formally cover sign-up, although the same patterns usually help there too.


    Cognitive Function Tests Hiding in Authentication Flows

    Most 3.3.8 issues don’t show up on the main login screen. They show up in the surrounding steps: the retry loop after a failed password, the MFA prompt, the recovery flow, or the extra verification that triggers when traffic looks unusual. When you walk through those paths end-to-end, you can see where memory or transcription slips back in.

    Memory-Based Authentication Pressure Points

    Asking users to recall a username, password, or passphrase without any assistive mechanism is a cognitive function test. Security questions like “What street did you grow up on” or “What was your first pet’s name” add even more recall pressure, often years after someone created the answers.

    Transcription-Based Authentication Pressure Points

    Many authentication flows expect people to read a one-time passcode from SMS or an authenticator app and then type it into a separate field. This becomes even harder when paste is blocked or when the code lives on a different device, and the user must move between them.

    Puzzle-Style Pressure Points and CAPTCHA

    Traditional CAPTCHAs that rely on distorted text, fine detail image selection, or audio that must be transcribed all require perception, memory, and focus under time pressure.

    If a CAPTCHA or extra test appears only after multiple failures or “suspicious” activity, it still has to comply with the success criterion.


    Fast WCAG 3.3.8 Wins With Password Managers and Paste

    Start with the stuff that breaks the widest range of users and is easiest to fix. If a password manager can’t reliably fill the form, or paste is blocked in password or code fields, the flow forces recall and transcription. That’s exactly what WCAG 3.3.8 is trying to remove.

    Implementation Details That Improve Accessible Authentication

    Allowing password managers to store and fill credentials removes the need for users to remember complex passwords. Allowing paste lets people move secure values from a password manager, secure notes, or another trusted source into the login form without retyping.

    Here’s what tends to matter in real implementations:

    • Use clear labels and proper input types so browsers and password managers can correctly identify login fields.
    • Avoid autocomplete="off" on username and password fields.
    • Do not attach scripts that block paste or interfere with autofill.

    A basic compliant login form can look like this:

    <form action="/login" method="post">
     <label for="username">Email</label>
     <input id="username" name="username" type="email"
            autocomplete="username" required>
    
     <label for="password">Password</label>
     <input id="password" name="password" type="password"
            autocomplete="current-password" required>
    
     <button type="submit">Log in</button>
     <a href="/forgot-password">Forgot password?</a>
    </form>

    A show password toggle is also helpful. It lets users check what they have typed without guessing, which reduces errors for people who struggle with working memory or fine motor control.

    From a security standpoint, allowing paste and password managers aligns with modern guidance. Strong, unique passwords managed by tooling are safer than short patterns that people try to remember across dozens of sites.


    Offering Authentication Paths That Reduce Cognitive Load

    Even with perfect autofill support, passwords are still a brittle dependency. WCAG 3.3.8 expects at least one route that doesn’t ask the user to remember or retype a secret. Passwordless options are the cleanest way to do that without playing whack-a-mole with edge cases.

    Magic Links by Email

    Users enter an email address and receive a time-limited, single-use link. Clicking that link completes authentication. Done well, this path removes passwords and codes entirely.

    Third-Party Sign In

    Signing in with an existing account from a trusted provider can also reduce cognitive load when the external account is already configured for accessible authentication. It shifts the cognitive work away from your login page, so you must still consider whether the rest of your flow remains usable.

    When you implement these methods, keep security fundamentals in place. Tokens should be single-use, expire after a reasonable window, and be protected by sensible rate limits. You can keep a strong security posture without making users memorize or transcribe extra values.


    Passkeys and WebAuthn as an Accessible Authentication Pattern

    Passkeys are one of the rare shifts where security and cognitive accessibility improve together. No remembered secrets. No code transcription. Authentication becomes a device interaction, which lines up cleanly with what WCAG 3.3.8 is trying to achieve.

    Why Passkeys Align Well With WCAG 3.3.8

    Passkeys based on WebAuthn use public key cryptography tied to the user’s device. Users confirm through a fingerprint, face recognition, device PIN, or a hardware key. They do not have to remember strings or retype codes, which removes a large source of cognitive effort.

    A simplified client example might look like this:

    const cred = await navigator.credentials.get({ publicKey });
    
    await fetch("/auth/webauthn/verify", {
     method: "POST",
     headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" },
     body: JSON.stringify(cred),
    });

    Design your interface so people can choose the method that works best for them. Do not force a single modality. Some users will prefer biometrics, others a hardware key, others a platform prompt. Always keep an accessible fallback available in case a device method fails.


    Rethinking MFA Without Creating New WCAG 3.3.8 Barriers

    MFA is where a lot of otherwise compliant logins fail. The password step might be fine, then the second factor turns into a transcription test. If the only available MFA path is “read six digits and type them,” you don’t actually have a low cognitive route through authentication under WCAG 3.3.8.

    MFA Patterns That Avoid Cognitive Barriers

    • Push notifications that allow the user to approve a sign-in with a simple action.
    • Hardware security keys that require a button press instead of code entry.
    • Device prompts that rely on the operating system’s secure authentication methods.

    If OTP is staying, the bar is simple. Make it fillable and pasteable, and don’t punish slower entry.

    • Allow paste and platform autofill for OTP fields.
    • Avoid very short expiration windows that penalize slower users.
    • Be careful with multi-input digit fields and ensure they support pasting a full code.

    A basic single-field OTP input can look like this:

    <label for="otp">Verification code</label>
    <input id="otp" name="otp"
          inputmode="numeric"
          autocomplete="one-time-code">

    This keeps the security benefit of MFA without turning the second factor into a failure point.


    CAPTCHA and Bot Protection Without Cognitive Puzzles

    CAPTCHAs often get introduced after a login endpoint gets abused. The default implementations are usually cognitive tests, and they tend to appear when the user is already in a retry loop or being flagged as suspicious. That is a bad time to add a puzzle.

    Bot-Mitigation Patterns That Don’t Burden the User

    Object recognition and personal content challenges may technically meet Level AA, but they still exclude many users and should not be your first choice. A better strategy is to move bot checks out of the user’s direct path whenever possible.

    Prefer controls that don’t ask the user to prove they’re human:

    • Rate-limiting login attempts.
    • Device or geo-based risk checks.
    • Invisible CAPTCHA that runs in the background.
    • Honeypot inputs that automated scripts are likely to fill.

    For example, a simple honeypot field can look like this:

    <div style="position:absolute;left:-9999px" aria-hidden="true">
     <label for="website">Website leave blank</label>
     <input id="website" name="website" tabindex="-1" autocomplete="off">
    </div>

    If the backend treats any non-empty value as a bot signal, most automated scripts are filtered without showing users a challenge at all.


    Testing Authentication Journeys Against WCAG 3.3.8

    You can’t validate WCAG 3.3.8 from markup alone. You need to run the flow the way users actually run it, including autofill, paste, and OS prompts. Then you need to intentionally trigger the “extra verification” paths because that’s where most failures live.

    Manual Tests That Matter for Accessible Authentication

    • Log in with a browser password manager and a popular third-party password manager.
    • Confirm that paste works in username, password, and OTP inputs.
    • Trigger retry flows, lockouts, and “suspicious” paths and check for hidden CAPTCHAs or extra steps.
    • Walk through every MFA route and confirm that at least one complete path avoids unsupported cognitive tests.

    Automated Checks for the Supporting Code

    Automation still helps as a tripwire, just not as the final verdict. Custom checks can flag:

    • Inputs with autocomplete="off" where credentials belong
    • Password and OTP fields that attach paste blocking handlers
    • Known CAPTCHA patterns that appear in authentication contexts

    The target is not “no friction.” The target is “no cognitive gate without a supported way through it.”


    Improving Login Usability Through WCAG 3.3.8

    WCAG 3.3.8 is much easier to handle when you treat authentication as a system, not a single screen. Most barriers show up in the supporting paths, not the main form. Once those routes are mapped and cleaned up, keeping at least one low-cognitive path end to end stops feeling like extra work and starts feeling like a more stable design pattern. You still keep strong security, but you drop the steps that slow users down or lock them out.

    If you want help threading accessible authentication and broader WCAG 2.2 requirements into your existing roadmap, 216digital can support that process. To see what that could look like for your team, you can schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing.

    Greg McNeil

    January 14, 2026
    How-to Guides
    Accessibility, How-to, WCAG, WCAG 3.3.8, WCAG Compliance, WCAG conformance, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility
  • Why Accessibility Belongs in Your CI/CD Pipeline

    Teams that ship often know how a small change can ripple through an application. A refactor that seems harmless can shift focus, hide a label, or break a keyboard path in a dialog that once felt dependable. Users notice it later, or support does, and by then the code has moved on. Fixing that one change now touches several places and pulls attention away from the current work. Treating inclusion only at the end of a project makes this pattern more likely.

    Putting checks for accessibility inside your CI/CD pipeline keeps them close to the code decisions that cause these issues. The goal is not to slow teams down. It is to give steady feedback while changes are still small and easy to adjust, so regressions do not build up in the background.

    Why Accessibility Testing Belongs in the CI/CD Pipeline

    Modern web applications rarely stand still. Large codebases, shared components, and parallel feature work all raise the chances that a small update will affect behavior somewhere else. In many enterprise environments, a single UI component can be consumed by dozens of teams, which means a code-level issue can propagate quickly across products.

    Accessibility Challenges in Enterprise CI/CD Environments

    At scale, accessibility is hard to keep stable with occasional audits. Shared components carry most of the interaction logic used across applications, so when those components shift, the impact shows up in many places at once, including flows that teams did not touch directly.

    Expectations are also higher. Laws and standards such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the European Accessibility Act, Section 508, and EN 301 549 establish that digital experiences are expected to work for people with disabilities. These requirements apply broadly, but scrutiny tends to increase as products gain traffic and visibility. When a core flow fails for keyboard or assistive technology users at that scale, the impact is harder to ignore.

    Enterprise environments add structural complexity as well. Large codebases, custom components, multi-step journeys, and frequent releases across distributed teams all create more chances for regressions to appear. Because these systems evolve continuously, complying with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) becomes an ongoing concern rather than a one-time remediation task.

    Taken together, that scale, visibility, and constant change push many companies toward code-level practices that support inclusion. Solving issues where you build and update components yields stronger, longer-lasting results than fixing them after they show up.

    Why the CI/CD Pipeline Is Critical for Enterprise Accessibility

    For enterprise teams, long-term inclusion depends on how interfaces are built at the code level. Semantics, keyboard behavior, focus handling, and ARIA logic form the structure that assistive technologies rely on. When these fundamentals are stable, the application behaves more predictably, and changes in one area are less likely to break interactions elsewhere.

    Code-level practices also match the way large systems are assembled. Shared component libraries, design systems, and multiple development streams all draw from the same patterns. When quality is built into those patterns, improvements reach every product that depends on them instead of being applied page by page. This helps teams control regressions and avoid fixing the same issue in different parts of the codebase.

    The CI/CD pipeline is the practical enforcement point for this work. Many organizations already use it to protect performance, security, and reliability. Adding checks that support inclusion into the same flow keeps them aligned with other quality signals developers already trust. WCAG highlights predictable sources of defects, such as missing semantics, inconsistent focus behavior, or insufficient role mapping, and those issues typically originate inside components rather than individual pages.

    Because every change passes through the CI/CD pipeline, it becomes a consistent checkpoint for catching regressions introduced by refactors, new features, or reuse in new contexts. This shifts inclusion from a periodic cleanup task to an ongoing engineering concern that is handled where code decisions are made.

    What Automation Can Reliably Catch

    Automation is most effective when it targets patterns that behave the same way across the codebase. A few areas consistently meet that bar.

    High-Coverage Scanning Across Large Codebases

    Automated checks handle large surfaces quickly. They scan templates, shared layouts, and common flows in minutes, which is useful when multiple teams ship updates across the same system. This level of coverage is difficult to achieve manually on every release.

    Identifying Common Issues Early in Development

    Many accessibility issues follow predictable patterns. Missing alternative text, low contrast, empty or incorrect labels, and unclear button names show up often in shared components and templates. Automation flags these reliably so they can be corrected before the same defect repeats across the application.

    Supporting Teams With Limited Review Capacity

    Manual testing cannot cover every change in a busy sprint. Automated scans provide a first pass that confirms whether the fundamentals are still intact. They surface simple regressions early, allowing human reviewers to focus on interaction quality and flow level behavior where judgment matters most.

    Fitting Into Established Engineering Workflows

    Automated checks fit cleanly into modern development practices. They run against components, routes, and preview builds inside the pipeline and appear next to other quality signals developers already track. Because findings map to rendered output, it is clear where issues originate and how to fix them.

    Strengthening Component Libraries Across the Stack

    Teams that rely on shared component libraries gain additional value from automation. Fixing a defect in one component updates every part of the application that uses it. This stabilizes patterns, reduces duplicated work, and lowers the chance of future regressions introduced through refactors or new feature development.

    Where Manual Accessibility Testing Is Still Essential

    Automated checks validate structure. Human reviewers validate whether the interaction holds up when someone relies on a keyboard or a screen reader. They notice when focus moves in ways the markup does not explain, when announcements come in an order that breaks the task, or when repeated text forces extra steps that slow the flow down.

    That gap is where automation stops. Meeting an individual standard does not guarantee the experience works in practice. Some decisions require interpretation. Reviewers can weigh design intent, compare two valid approaches, and choose the pattern that is clearer and more stable for users who depend on assistive technology.

    Human review also connects issues back to the systems that produced them. When a dialog, button, or error pattern behaves inconsistently, reviewers can trace the problem to the component, token, or workflow behind it. Fixing it there prevents the same defect from reappearing across teams and features.

    How to Add Accessibility Checks to Your CI/CD Pipeline

    Once you know what automation can handle and where human judgment is needed, you decide how to wire both into everyday delivery.

    Most teams start at the pull request level. Running checks on each PR surfaces issues while the change set is small and the context is still clear. Reports that point to specific components or selectors keep debugging time low and make it easier to fix problems before they spread.

    From there, checks can be layered inside the CI/CD pipeline without getting heavy. Lightweight linting catches obvious issues before code leaves the branch. Component-level checks validate shared patterns in isolation. Flow level scans cover high-impact routes such as sign-in, search, and checkout. Keeping each layer focused reduces noise and makes failures easier to act on.

    For teams with existing accessibility debt, a baseline approach helps. Builds fail only when new violations appear, while older issues are tracked separately. That stops regressions without forcing a full remediation project before anything can ship. Teams can then reduce the baseline over time as capacity allows.

    Severity levels give teams room to tune enforcement. Blocking issues should stop a merge. Lower-impact items can start as warnings and become stricter as patterns stabilize. PR checks stay fast, while deeper scans run on a nightly or pre-release schedule, so feedback remains useful without slowing reviews.

    Monitoring Accessibility Regressions Across Releases

    Even with strong CI/CD pipeline coverage, changes outside the codebase can introduce issues. CMS updates, content shifts, feature flags, and third-party integrations all influence how users experience a page. Many teams run scheduled scans on critical flows for this reason, especially when those flows depend on dynamic or CMS driven content.

    A clear definition of done keeps expectations aligned across teams. Keyboard navigation works through core paths. Labels and messages are announced correctly. Focus is visible and follows a logical sequence. Automated checks pass or have a documented exception when they do not.

    Treat post-deployment signals like any other quality metric. Track regressions per release, watch trends in recurring violations, and measure time to fix. The goal is not perfect numbers. It is keeping patterns stable as the system continues to evolve.

    Making Accessibility a Standard Part of Your Release Process

    When teams treat inclusion like any other quality concern in the CI/CD pipeline, it becomes part of day-to-day engineering instead of a separate task. Releases stabilize. Regressions fall. Features ship without blocking users who rely on assistive technology.

    The starting point can be small. A team can choose a few essential routes, add targeted scans in the CI/CD pipeline, and agree on a baseline that prevents new issues from entering the codebase. As that workflow stabilizes, coverage can expand to additional routes and enforcement can become more precise.

    At 216digital, we help teams build a practical plan for integrating WCAG 2.1 compliance into their development workflow. If you want support shaping an approach that fits your stack, your release rhythm, and your long-term goals, you can schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing. It is a chance to talk through your current process and explore what a sustainable accessibility roadmap could look like.

    Greg McNeil

    January 12, 2026
    Testing & Remediation
    Accessibility, CI/CD Pipeline, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility
  • How to Test Mobile Accessibility using TalkBack

    It is easy to rely on your eyes when reviewing a mobile site. A quick glance, a few taps, and the page seems fine. But that view is incomplete. Many users experience mobile content through audio, and their path through a page can sound very different from what you expect.

    Android’s screen reader, TalkBack, helps bridge that gap by letting you hear how your site behaves without visual cues. If you want to test mobile accessibility with TalkBack in a way that fits real development work, this article shares a practical approach to weaving screen reader testing into your ongoing process so issues surface earlier and mobile interactions stay dependable. It is written for teams who already know the basics of accessibility and WCAG and want more structured, repeatable mobile web accessibility testing.

    What TalkBack Is and Why It Matters for Mobile Accessibility Testing

    TalkBack is the screen reader that ships with Android devices. When it is enabled, it announces elements on the screen, their roles, and their states. It also replaces direct visual targeting with swipes, taps, and other gestures so people can move through pages without relying on sight.

    Testing with this tool shows how your site appears to the Android accessibility layer. You hear whether headings follow a sensible order, whether regions are exposed as landmarks, and whether labels give enough context when they are spoken on their own. You also get a clear sense of how focus moves as people swipe through the page, open menus, and submit forms.

    Small problems stand out more when they are spoken. A vague link, a control with no name, or a jumpy focus path can feel minor when you are looking at the page. Through audio, those same issues can turn into confusion and fatigue.

    Screen readers on other platforms use different gestures and sometimes expose content in slightly different ways. VoiceOver on iOS and desktop tools such as NVDA or JAWS have their own rules and patterns. That is why this approach treats Android’s screen reader as one important view into accessibility, not a substitute for cross-screen-reader testing.

    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements still apply in the same way across devices. On mobile, the impact of focus order, input behavior, and gesture alternatives becomes more obvious because users are often holding the device with one hand, on smaller screens, and in busy environments.

    Preparing Your Device for Effective Screen Reader Testing

    A stable device setup makes your testing more dependable over time. You do not need anything complex. An Android phone or tablet, the browser your users rely on, and a space where you can hear the speech clearly are enough. Headphones can help if your office or home is noisy.

    Before you run your first pass, spend a few minutes in the screen reader’s settings. Adjust the speech rate until you can follow long sessions without strain. Set pitch and voice in a way that feels natural to you, and confirm that language and voice match the primary language of your site. These details matter during longer test sessions.

    Different Android versions and manufacturers sometimes change labels or menu layouts. A Samsung phone may not match a Pixel device exactly. You do not need to chase the perfect configuration. What helps most is using one setup consistently so that your results are comparable from sprint to sprint. That consistency also makes your Android screen reader testing easier to repeat.

    Enabling and Disabling TalkBack Without Breaking Your Flow

    You can turn the screen reader on through the Accessibility section in system settings. For regular work, it is worth taking the extra step to set up a shortcut. Many teams use the volume-key shortcut or the on-screen accessibility button so they can toggle the feature in a couple of seconds.

    That quick toggle becomes important during development. You might review a component visually, enable the screen reader, test it again, turn the reader off, adjust the code, and then repeat. If enabling and disabling feels slow or clumsy, it becomes harder to keep this step in your routine.

    There is a small learning curve. With the screen reader active, most standard gestures use two fingers. You also need to know how to pause speech and how to suspend the service if it becomes stuck. Practicing these motions for a few minutes pays off. Once they are familiar, switching the screen reader on and off feels like a normal part of testing, not an interruption.

    Core TalkBack Gestures You Actually Need for Testing

    You do not need every gesture to run useful tests. A small set covers most of what matters for web content. Swiping right moves forward through focusable items. Swiping left moves backward. Double-tapping activates the element that currently has focus. Touching and sliding your finger on the screen lets you explore what sits under your finger.

    Begin with simple linear navigation. Start at the top of the page and move through each item in order. Ask yourself whether the reading order matches the visual layout. Listen for buttons, links, and controls that do not make sense when heard out of context, such as “Button” with no name or several “Learn more” links with no extra detail. Pay attention to roles and states, like “checked,” “expanded,” or “menu,” and whether they appear where they should.

    This pace will feel slower than visual scanning. That slowness helps you notice gaps in labeling, structure, and focus behavior that you might skip over with your eyes.

    Using Menus to Navigate by Structure

    After you are comfortable moving element by element, the screen reader’s menus help you explore structure more directly. There are two menus that matter most. One controls general reading options and system actions. The other lets you move by headings, links, landmarks, and controls.

    Turn on navigation by headings and walk the hierarchy. You should hear a clear outline of the page as you move. Missing levels, unclear section names, or long stretches with no headings at all are signals that your structure may not be helping nonvisual users.

    Next, move by landmarks. This reveals whether your regions, such as header, main, navigation, and footer, are present and used in a way that matches the layout. Finally, scan links and controls in sequence. Duplicate or vague link text stands out when you hear it in a list. Controls with incomplete labeling do as well.

    These structural passes do more than make navigation easier for screen reader users. They also reflect how well your content model and component library support accessible use across the site.

    A Repeatable First-Pass Screen Reader Workflow

    You do not need to run a full audit on every page. A light but steady workflow is easier to sustain and still catches a large share of issues.

    When you review a new page or a major change, enable the screen reader and let it read from the top so you can hear how the page begins. Then move through the page in order and note any confusing labels, skipped content, or unexpected jumps. Once you have that baseline, use heading navigation to check hierarchy, and landmark navigation to check regions. Finally, move through links and controls to spot unclear text and missing names.

    Along the way, keep track of patterns. Maybe icon buttons from one component set are often missing labels, or error messages on forms rarely announce. These patterns make it easier to fix groups of issues at the design system level instead of one page at a time. This kind of manual accessibility testing becomes more efficient once you know which components tend to fail.

    High-Impact Scenarios to Test More Deeply

    Some parts of a mobile site deserve more focused time because they carry more weight for users and for the business.

    Forms and inputs should always have clear labels, including fields that are required or have special formats. Error messages need to be announced at the right time, and focus should move to a helpful place when validation fails.

    Navigation elements such as menus and drawers should announce when they open or close. Focus should shift into them when they appear and return to a sensible point when they are dismissed. Modals and other dynamic content should trap focus while active and hand it back cleanly when they close. Status updates like loading indicators and confirmation messages should be announced without forcing users to hunt for them.

    Mobile-specific patterns also matter. Features that rely on swiping, such as carousels or card stacks, should include alternative controls that work with focus and activation gestures. Optional Bluetooth keyboard testing on tablets and phones can provide extra confidence for users who pair a keyboard with their device.

    Capturing Findings and Making TalkBack Testing Sustainable

    Bringing TalkBack into your workflow is one of those small shifts that pays off quickly. It helps you catch problems earlier, tighten the way your components behave, and build mobile experiences that hold up under real use. A few minutes of listening during each release can surface issues no visual check or automated scan will ever flag.

    If you want support building a screen reader testing process that fits the way your team ships work, we can help. At 216digital, we work with teams to fold WCAG 2.1 and practical mobile testing into a development roadmap that respects time, resources, and existing workflows. To explore how our experts can help you maintain a more accessible and dependable mobile experience, schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing today.

    Greg McNeil

    January 9, 2026
    How-to Guides, Testing & Remediation
    Accessibility, Accessibility testing, screen readers, TalkBack, user testing, Website Accessibility
  • What a WCAG Audit Should Really Tell You

    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide a shared language for evaluating digital accessibility. WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the most widely accepted benchmark for audits today, and it gives teams a clear way to identify barriers that affect people with disabilities.

    But the presence of a standard alone does not guarantee a useful outcome.

    Many teams audit against WCAG and still walk away unsure what to do next. The report may confirm that issues exist, but it does not always make it clear which ones matter most, how they affect real use, or how to move from findings to fixes without derailing existing work.

    Using WCAG well means treating it as a framework, not a checklist. A meaningful audit uses WCAG to identify barriers, then interprets those barriers through real interaction. It looks at how people move through the site, where they get blocked, and which issues create the most friction or risk.

    A WCAG Audit should not leave your team with a document to archive. It should give you direction that your team can act on.

    This article looks at what a WCAG audit should actually tell you, so you can tell the difference between a report that gets filed away and one that helps your team make progress.


    Defining the Scope: What a Meaningful WCAG Audit Should Cover

    Accessibility issues rarely live on a single page. They show up in the places where users try to get something done. That is why scope matters so much.

    A strong WCAG Audit goes beyond the homepage and a small page sample. It focuses on the paths people rely on most.

    That typically includes login and account access, checkout or registration flows, high-impact forms, and areas with complex components like filters, modals, or carousels. These are the places where barriers are most likely to stop progress.

    Scope should also account for responsive behavior. A flow that works on desktop but breaks on mobile is still a broken experience.

    The audit should clearly state which WCAG version and level are being used, what content types are included, and what is explicitly out of scope. This is not a formality. It prevents confusion later and helps teams plan ahead.


    How Testing Is Approached in a WCAG Audit

    Most teams have seen scan results before. What they need from an audit is testing that reflects how the site behaves during use, especially in the flows that matter.

    A strong audit looks beyond surface-level scans and focuses on how people actually use the site. That means testing key user journeys, not just isolated pages. Login flows, checkout, forms, account access, and other critical interactions should be part of the scope from the start.

    Automated and Manual Testing Work Together

    Automation plays a role, but it is only the starting point. Automated tools are useful for catching patterns like missing labels or contrast failures at scale. They cannot fully evaluate keyboard behavior, focus order, screen reader output, or how dynamic components behave during real interaction.

    That is why manual testing matters. Human review confirms whether users can move through key flows using a keyboard, whether focus is visible and predictable, and whether assistive technologies announce content in a way that makes sense. This is often where the most disruptive barriers appear.

    Real Environments Should Be Part of the Picture

    You should also expect clarity around what environments were tested. Not every detail needs to be exhaustive, but the audit should make it clear that testing included real browsers, real devices, and real interaction patterns.

    That level of detail builds confidence in the results. It also makes future validation easier, especially after fixes ship.


    Understanding WCAG References Without Getting Lost

    Most audit reports include success criteria numbers. Those references can feel dense at first, but they are useful once you know what they are doing.

    WCAG is organized around four core principles.

    • Perceivable
    • Operable
    • Understandable
    • Robust

    Those principles are reflected in the numbering you see in audit findings. WCAG findings often reference specific success criteria using numbered labels, and that structure helps with traceability and research.

    For example, a reference to 2.1.1 points to the Operable principle and the requirement that all functionality be available from a keyboard. When many issues begin with the same first number, it often signals a broader category of barriers.

    If a large portion of findings start with 2, teams are often dealing with Operable issues like keyboard access, focus management, or navigation flow. If they start with 1, the barriers may relate more to visual presentation or non-text content.

    This context helps teams spot patterns early and understand where to focus. It also helps frame accessibility work around user experience instead of isolated fixes.


    How a WCAG Audit Turns Issues Into Action

    This is where audits either earn their value or lose it. Identifying accessibility problems is only useful if teams can understand them quickly and decide what to do next without getting overwhelmed.

    Issues Should Be Clear Enough to Fix Without Follow-Up

    Describe each barrier in a way that lets developers fix it without a long clarification thread, and in a way that helps non-engineers understand why it matters.

    When issues lack location detail or rely on generic guidance, teams end up doing detective work. That slows progress and increases the chance that fixes address symptoms instead of the underlying barrier.

    Here is what a usable issue write-up should include.

    Issue elementWhat it answersWhy it matters
    DescriptionWhat is wrong in the interfacePrevents misinterpretation
    LocationWhere it happensSpeeds up debugging
    WCAG mappingWhich criterion appliesSupports traceability
    EvidenceScreenshot or code noteConfirms accuracy
    Steps to reproduceHow to verify and re-testEnables validation
    ImpactWho is affected and howGuides prioritization
    RecommendationHow to fix itTurns issues into tickets

    Severity and Frequency Should Guide What Gets Fixed First

    Not every issue carries the same weight, and a good audit makes that clear. Severity should reflect user impact, not just whether a technical standard was violated.

    SeverityWhat it usually meansCommon example
    CriticalBlocks a key taskKeyboard trap during checkout
    HighMajor usability failureRequired form fields not labeled
    MediumFriction that adds upRepeated unclear link text
    LowMinor issuesRedundant label on a low-traffic page

    Two patterns tend to show up in almost every audit.

    The most harm usually comes from a small number of blocking issues. A report may list hundreds of medium findings, but just a few critical ones can stop people from completing the actions the site is meant to support. A single keyboard trap in checkout or a form error that fails to announce itself can halt users before they finish the site’s primary task.

    Second, large issue counts often point to shared components or templates. When the same problem appears across many pages, fixing the underlying pattern once can improve accessibility across the site far more efficiently than addressing each instance in isolation.

    When severity and frequency are considered together, teams can focus on what reduces risk and improves usability. The audit stops feeling like a list of problems and starts functioning as a practical plan teams can follow.


    Accessibility Beyond the Checklist

    Meeting WCAG criteria is important, but technical alignment alone does not guarantee a usable experience.

    Teams run into this often. A site can pass certain checks and still feel confusing or difficult to navigate. Focus order may follow the DOM, but it feels chaotic. Labels may exist, but fail to provide useful context when read aloud.

    A strong WCAG Audit explains not just what fails, but how those failures affect people using assistive technology. That perspective helps teams design fixes that improve usability, not just conformance.

    This approach also supports risk reduction. Many accessibility-related legal actions stem from barriers that prevent people from completing core tasks. Audits that connect findings to user experience help organizations focus on what matters most.


    Reporting, Tracking, and Measuring Progress

    A report is only helpful if people can use it.

    Leadership needs a high-level summary of themes, priorities, and risks. Development teams need detailed findings grouped by component or template. Designers and content teams need examples and guidance they can apply in their work without guesswork.

    A good audit also creates a baseline. It documents what was tested, what was found, and what needs to be addressed. That record supports follow-up validation and demonstrates ongoing effort.

    Accessibility is not a one-time event. Teams benefit most when audits are treated as part of a cycle that includes improvements, validation, and monitoring.


    Turning a WCAG Audit into Real Risk Mitigation

    A WCAG Audit should give you insight and direction, not just a compliance score. The most valuable audits help you understand what barriers matter most, which issues pose the biggest risk for your users and your organization, and how to reduce that risk in a measurable way.

    At 216digital, we specialize in ADA risk mitigation and ongoing support. Rather than treating audits as stand-alone checklists, we help teams interpret findings, connect those findings to user impact, and turn them into prioritized fixes that reduce exposure to accessibility-related legal risk and improve the experience for people with disabilities. That means working with you to sequence fixes, support implementation where needed, and make accessibility progress part of your product workflow.

    If your team has an audit report and you’re unsure how to move from findings to meaningful action, we invite you to schedule a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing. In this session, we’ll help you understand your current risk profile, clarify priorities rooted in the audit, and develop a strategy to integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development roadmap on your terms.

    Accessibility isn’t a one-off project. It is ongoing work that pays dividends in usability, audience reach, brand trust, and reduced legal exposure. When you’re ready to make your audit actionable and strategic, we’re here to help.

    Greg McNeil

    January 8, 2026
    Testing & Remediation, Web Accessibility Remediation
    Accessibility, Accessibility Audit, WCAG, WCAG Audit, WCAG Compliance, Website Accessibility
  • How Digital Accessibility Is Changing in 2026

    Running a website today means juggling a long list of responsibilities. Performance, security, content updates, design refreshes, AI experimentation, compliance questions. Accessibility often sits somewhere in the middle of that list. Important, but easy to push aside when other deadlines feel more urgent.

    As 2026 gets closer, keeping up is becoming more difficult. Expectations are higher, changes are happening faster, and many website owners are wondering: What does this mean for my site? How much do I need to do? How can I keep up without always scrambling to fix accessibility?

    If you’re trying to plan ahead, digital accessibility can feel like one more moving target. This article walks through three shifts shaping 2026 and offers a practical way to prepare without adding extra stress.


    Shift 1: Why Digital Accessibility Is Becoming Core Website Infrastructure

    One of the biggest changes in 2026 is how teams position the work. Instead of treating accessibility as a project with an end date, more organizations are treating it like website infrastructure. Similar to security or performance, it has to hold up through releases, new content, vendor updates, and design changes.

    Why One-Time Accessibility Fixes No Longer Work for Modern Websites

    For years, teams often handled accessibility as a one-time fix. They would address the issues, publish a report, and then move on. Most did the best they could with the time and resources available.

    Now, teams notice how quickly earlier accessibility work can lose its value if it is not part of the site’s ongoing process. Work gets passed between teams, new content is added months later, and templates are reused in unexpected ways. Accessibility gaps come back, not because people ignore them, but because there are no consistent habits to support them.

    This trend also appears in enforcement. In 2024, 41% of web accessibility lawsuits were copycat cases, according to UseableNet. Many of these organizations had already tried to improve accessibility, but as their sites changed, old issues resurfaced, or new ones emerged. Without ongoing attention, earlier efforts lose their impact.

    This is where accessibility debt builds up. Small problems add up over redesigns, framework changes, staff changes, and tight deadlines. Each issue may seem small, but together they create a growing backlog that becomes harder and more expensive to fix.

    How Standards Are Becoming the Baseline, Not the Bonus

    Another change is that expectations are becoming more consistent in contracts and partner requirements. Many organizations that used to follow WCAG 2.1 are now treating WCAG 2.2 as the new standard. This matters because it changes what vendors must support, how teams are measured, and what counts as “done.”

    For website owners, this means accessibility is less likely to be treated as a special request and more likely to be considered a standard requirement for modern websites, especially when contracts, platforms, or enterprise stakeholders are involved.

    What Accessibility as Infrastructure Looks Like in Practice

    When accessibility is treated as infrastructure, it shows up upstream. It’s embedded in the acceptance criteria, not something discovered in an audit. And it’s supported by QA so issues are found in testing, not raised by users later.

    Many teams are also seeing the benefits of using native HTML. Native elements have built-in features that assistive technologies handle well. By using standard controls, teams spend less time fixing bugs, patching ARIA, or maintaining custom widgets that can become difficult to manage.


    Shift 2: How AI Is Changing Digital Accessibility Workflows

    AI isn’t just helping teams work faster. It’s changing how websites come together in the first place. Pages are generated, components are assembled, content is drafted, and updates go live quickly, often faster than traditional review cycles can realistically support.

    For most teams, the risk isn’t one bad decision. It’s how quickly small issues can spread. When accessibility problems enter the system early, they don’t stay isolated. They show up again and again across templates, campaigns, and key user paths before anyone has a chance to step in.

    That’s why accessibility now feels less like a checklist and more like ongoing quality control. The work is about keeping experiences steady while everything around them keeps changing.

    AI Will Build More, Developers Will Still Steer

    By 2026, AI will handle much of the day-to-day building work. It will generate pages, assemble components, and draft content as part of normal production.

    But in complex environments, developers aren’t going away.

    Large organizations still need people who understand how systems fit together, how integrations behave, and where things tend to break. The role shifts away from writing every line by hand and toward guiding AI output, validating results, and fixing what doesn’t hold up in real use.

    From a digital accessibility standpoint, this changes where risk lives. Issues are less likely to come from a single coding mistake and more likely to come from how AI systems are configured, connected, and allowed to operate at scale.

    Where AI Helps and Where It Falls Short

    AI is genuinely useful for work that’s difficult to manage by hand. It can surface patterns across large sites, group related issues, and turn long reports into better priorities. It can also help draft content or suggest alt text, as long as a human reviews the final result.

    Where it falls short is in judging the actual experience of using a site.

    Modern websites are assembled from layers. Design systems, CMS platforms, personalization tools, third-party scripts, and AI-generated elements all influence what ends up in the browser, sometimes after the underlying code has already been reviewed.

    Assistive technologies interact only with what is rendered on the screen. They don’t account for intent or what the code was supposed to produce. Automated tools can catch many technical issues, but they often miss broader usability problems when the final experience becomes inconsistent or difficult to navigate with a keyboard or screen reader.

    What Teams Need Before Scaling AI

    Teams tend to get the most value from AI when the basics are already solid. That usually means consistent components, documented behavior, and shared expectations for what “done” really means.

    It also means being prepared for last-mile issues. Some accessibility problems don’t show up until everything is live and interacting. Fixing them requires ownership of the user experience, even when the root cause sits inside a vendor tool or generated workflow.

    Over time, accessibility becomes a useful signal. When AI-driven experiences fail accessibility checks, they often reveal broader quality problems, including structure, clarity, and stability, not just compliance gaps.

    By 2026, digital accessibility work will sit closer to the center of how teams manage AI quality. Not as a separate initiative, but as part of how they keep digital experiences usable, reliable, and resilient.


    Shift 3: Why Leadership and Culture Decide Whether Accessibility Actually Sticks

    Even with strong tools and standards, progress can still stall. It often comes down to how decisions are made when priorities compete.

    Where Accessibility Breaks Down Without Leadership Alignment

    Most accessibility challenges do not come from a lack of awareness. They come from unresolved tradeoffs. Teams know what needs to be done, but they are unsure who has the authority to slow things down, ask for changes, or say no when something introduces risk.

    If accessibility relies on individual advocates instead of shared expectations, it becomes fragile. Leadership alignment changes this. When accessibility is seen as part of quality, teams stop debating its importance and start planning how to deliver it within real constraints.

    What Effective Accessibility Leadership Looks Like Day to Day

    Leadership is shown more by actions than by statements. Accessibility becomes part of planning, not just a follow-up task. Teams set aside time to fix issues before release, not after problems arise. Tradeoffs are discussed openly, with accessibility considered along with performance, security, and usability.

    Clear governance supports this work. Teams know who owns decisions, how issues are prioritized, and when a release needs to pause. These signals remove uncertainty and help teams move with confidence.

    Why Skills and Shared Ownership Matter More Than Champions

    Training matters, but not as a one-time event. Skills need reinforcement as tools and workflows change.

    Designers need patterns they can reuse. Developers need reliable interaction models and accessibility testing habits. Content teams need guidance that fits fast publishing cycles. Product and project leaders need support prioritizing accessibility work early, not after problems surface.

    As these skills become more common, digital accessibility is no longer just for specialists. It becomes part of how everyone on the team works together.

    How Culture Shapes Accessibility Outcomes Over Time

    Culture is what remains when tools change, and people move on. It shows up in whether accessibility issues are treated like real bugs, whether reviews include keyboard and focus checks, and whether success is measured by task completion instead of surface-level scores.

    This shift toward focusing on real outcomes is becoming more common. Teams are now looking at whether users can complete important actions easily, not just if a scan passes.

    In 2026, organizations that keep making progress are those where leadership supports accessibility, teams share the right skills, and everyday decisions reflect these values.


    Turning These Shifts Into a Strategy That Holds Up

    These changes build on each other. Treating digital accessibility as infrastructure makes it more stable. Using AI helps teams move faster without losing control. When leadership and culture support the effort, progress continues even as priorities change.

    A practical approach for 2026 does not mean fixing everything at once. It means being consistent. Start by making sure ownership and standards are in place. Then add accessibility to the workflows teams already use, like design systems, development reviews, content publishing, and QA. Once these habits are set, scaling is about preventing backsliding, not starting over each time.


    Looking Ahead to Accessibility in 2026

    Accessibility has always been about people. It is about whether someone can complete a task, understand information, or participate fully in a digital experience without unnecessary barriers. As digital environments continue to evolve through 2026, with faster release cycles and broader use of AI, having a steady strategy becomes less about reacting and more about staying aligned.

    The teams that move forward with confidence are the ones that treat digital accessibility as part of how their digital work functions every day.

    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 meets both your business goals and the needs of your users, schedule a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing today.

    Greg McNeil

    January 7, 2026
    Web Accessibility Remediation
    2026, AI-driven accessibility, Small Business, Web Accessibility, web development, Website Accessibility
  • WCAG Level A Is the Floor, Not the Finish Line

    A question comes up on almost every digital team at some point: “Is our site accessible?”

    The answer is often a hesitant, “We think so.” That pause tells you a lot.

    Accessibility often breaks down behind the scenes. When it’s missing, the gaps aren’t always obvious. A site can look great but still block people with disabilities from basic tasks, like filling out a form or using a menu. These issues may go unnoticed by sighted mouse users, creating false confidence.

    WCAG Level A marks the point at which those hidden gaps become visible. It sets the minimum conditions a website must meet to be functionally usable by people with disabilities, well before higher standards come into play. When those conditions are missing, even well-intended experiences can fall apart.

    We will take a closer look at what WCAG Level A covers, the barriers teams often miss, and how teams can start building accessibility best practices into lasting changes.

    A Quick Refresher on WCAG and the Three Levels

    The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are a set of technical standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). They are based on established accessibility principles and how people with disabilities use digital products.

    WCAG defines three levels of conformance.

    • Level A is the baseline. It addresses the most critical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from using a site at all.
    • Level AA builds on that foundation and is the most common target for web accessibility compliance. It introduces requirements that improve clarity, consistency, and overall usability across experiences.
    • Level AAA is used selectively, with teams applying it to specific content or features rather than to an entire website.

    Some organizations write off Level A as “bare minimum,” yet it sets the groundwork that enables meaningful access from the start. Without it, screen reader users miss essential information, keyboard users cannot complete core tasks, and people with cognitive or seizure-related disabilities face real risk. Every credible WCAG compliance effort relies on teams putting this foundation in place.

    The Four Principles of WCAG

    WCAG organizes its guidance around four principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. At this level, each principle speaks to its core purpose—determining whether people can access the content in the first place.

    Perceivable

    Perceivable requirements ensure that essential information is available in at least one usable form. Content cannot rely solely on vision or hearing.

    For example, an image used as a submit button must have text that identifies its purpose. Without an accessible name, a screen reader user may encounter the control but have no way to know what it does.

    Operable

    Operable requirements focus on whether users can interact with the interface using basic input methods, including a keyboard.

    A common failure is a navigation menu that works with a mouse but cannot be accessed or exited using a keyboard. When this happens, users may be unable to reach large portions of the site.

    Understandable

    Understandable requirements address whether controls and interactions behave in predictable ways.

    For instance, a form submit button that unexpectedly opens a new window can disorient users, particularly those relying on assistive technology, by disrupting their sense of location and task flow.

    Robust

    Robust requirements cover whether the underlying code communicates structure and purpose in a way that assistive technology can interpret reliably.

    A typical issue is a custom button built from a generic element that lacks an exposed role or name. Visually, it may function as intended, but assistive technology cannot recognize or announce it as an interactive control.

    Together, these requirements form the backbone of WCAG. They are about doing the fundamentals well and doing them consistently.

    Why WCAG Level A Is Not Optional

    Level A failures are not subtle. They prevent use entirely. A job application cannot be submitted because form fields lack labels. A navigation menu only responds to hover. A modal traps focus with no clear way out. In each case, the experience does not degrade—it stops.

    The impact is immediate. Users are blocked, tasks are abandoned, and opportunities are lost. These are not edge cases or rare scenarios. They are common patterns that surface whenever foundational accessibility is missing.

    Accessibility complaints often arise from these same breakdowns. Regulators may reference Level AA, but users typically report Level A failures because they cannot complete essential actions. When users lose access at this level, the compliance risk escalates quickly.

    The same failures appear in analytics and support queues. Abandoned carts, failed logins, repeated help requests—signals of friction that affect far more than assistive technology users. Addressing these barriers improves usability broadly, not incidentally.

    Technically, the cost of ignoring WCAG Level A grows over time. When foundational components are inaccessible, every feature built on top inherits the same limitations. Fixing the system once is more durable than correcting the same issue across dozens of pages later.

    Level A is not a stepping stone to be revisited. It is the structural layer that everything else depends on.

    Common WCAG Level A Failures Teams Miss

    Level A failures are not edge cases. They show up in everyday templates and long-standing components—the ones teams trust because they have shipped for years. That familiarity is exactly why they keep flying under the radar.

    Alt Text That Breaks Meaning

    Alt text problems are still among the most frequent Level A misses. Sometimes it is missing entirely. Other times, it is present but unhelpful—either adding noise or failing to convey what the image is doing on the page. The result is the same: essential context is lost.

    Forms Users Cannot Complete

    Forms reveal WCAG Level A gaps immediately. Unclear or unconnected labels, visual-only instructions, and error messages that assistive technology cannot reliably interpret all come from choices teams make during implementation. When those choices break the form, the user loses more than convenience—they lose the task.

    Keyboard Interaction That Is Assumed

    Keyboard access is often treated as implied rather than verified. Interactive components work on click, but do not behave correctly with Tab, Enter, arrow keys, or focus. When focus is missing or trapped, the experience stops being difficult and starts being unusable.

    Behavior That Changes Without Warning

    Unexpected context changes—new tabs, automatic actions, sudden focus shifts—create confusion and increase failure rates, especially for users relying on assistive technology or predictable navigation patterns.

    Because these failures stem from foundational components, solving them is not a detail or afterthought—it is the main act of accessibility. Closing these gaps is where accessibility starts, and credibility is built.

    How to See Where You Stand Today

    Start with core user flows rather than isolated pages. Login, checkout, account creation, and contact forms are where accessibility shifts from principle to outcome. If these paths fail, the experience fails, regardless of how polished individual pages may appear.

    From there, automated tools can help surface clear, repeatable issues such as missing alternative text or improper form labeling. These tools are useful for identifying patterns, but they capture only a portion of the accessibility barriers.

    Manual evaluation covers the remaining gaps. Spend a few minutes moving through the page using only a keyboard. Then run a screen reader yourself and listen closely to how it announces headings, links, buttons, and form fields.

    When you spot a problem, write it up in a way that helps teams act on it—location, element, and what the user would encounter. Group similar items together and flag barriers that carry the most weight. It keeps the backlog readable and the decisions straightforward.

    A Practical Path to WCAG Level A, and Staying There

    Start by fixing barriers that completely block access. Address forms that won’t submit, buttons that won’t activate, and keyboard traps first.

    Momentum builds when teams stop treating issues as isolated defects and start addressing the underlying patterns that cause them.

    Address Issues at the Pattern Level

    Design systems and component libraries should make accessible buttons, forms, and navigation the default, not the exception.

    Give Teams Clear Guidance

    Content creators need direction on headings and alternative text. Designers need to plan interactions that work without a mouse. Developers should rely on semantic HTML and apply ARIA only when necessary.

    Build Accessibility Into Daily Workflows

    Keyboard-only checks during QA and brief screen reader testing during reviews help prevent regressions as sites evolve.

    Revisit Regularly

    Accessibility is ongoing, especially as content and features change. Use continuous scanning and reporting to help maintain compliance and stay ahead of risks.

    Building a Confident Accessibility Foundation

    WCAG Level A is where accessibility moves from assumption to certainty. It addresses the barriers that stop people cold and replaces them with a foundation that teams can actually build on. The work is focused, the outcomes are clear, and progress is far more attainable than it is often made out to be.

    This level rewards steady attention rather than sweeping overhauls. When teams start with the flows that matter most and fix what prevents completion, accessibility begins to hold. Those early corrections shape better components, stronger patterns, and fewer regressions as sites evolve.

    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 people who rely on it, schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing.

    Greg McNeil

    December 29, 2025
    WCAG Compliance
    Accessibility, Level A, WCAG, WCAG 2.1, WCAG Compliance, WCAG conformance, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
  • Making Web Accessibility a “Must Do,” Not a “Should Do”

    Most teams do not ignore web accessibility. In fact, many agree it matters. It comes up in planning meetings. Someone flags it during backlog management. There is real intent behind the conversation.

    But as the sprint fills up and deadlines stay firm, accessibility often gets pushed to a later date.

    This isn’t about a lack of concern or values. It’s a result of how teams deliver work. When digital accessibility isn’t part of daily planning, building, and review, it gets treated as optional, even if everyone agrees it matters. Anything seen as “extra” has to compete with deadlines, staffing, and budgets, so it often gets sidelined.

    Accessibility becomes non-negotiable only when it is handled the same way as quality. Not as a special initiative. Not as a periodic clean-up. But as a built-in part of how a website is designed, developed, tested, and maintained—every release, every sprint, every time.

    Why Web Accessibility Still Gets Pushed Back

    Digital teams are used to jumping on problems that cause obvious issues. If a site goes down, revenue drops. A security problem puts the business at risk. A broken checkout shows up almost immediately in the data. Those situations force action because the consequences are hard to miss.

    Accessibility doesn’t work like that. There are rarely moments that demand attention, so it’s easy for them to slip into the “we’ll get to it” category. And because it is often framed as serving a smaller group, it can get pushed aside in favor of work tied to short-term KPIs. That framing is also inaccurate. CDC data shows more than 1 in 4 adults in the United States, about 28.7%, report having a disability. The World Health Organization estimates 1.3 billion people worldwide experience significant disability.

    Many Barriers End in Abandonment

    A keyboard user tries to open a menu but can’t without a mouse. A screen reader user finds a button with no name. A customer turns on captions for a product video, but they’re missing, so the details are lost.

    Most of these users don’t report the problem. They just leave.

    That’s why accessibility is hard to prioritize. The impact doesn’t show up as a big failure. Instead, it looks like a session that ends early, a form that’s never submitted, or a customer who doesn’t return.

    From the team’s point of view, nothing seems broken. There’s no error alert or support ticket. Without seeing where someone got stuck, these moments blend into the background and are often mistaken for minor issues instead of real barriers.

    “Make It Accessible” Is Not a Plan

    Accessibility often stalls not because teams think it’s unimportant, but because there’s no clear agreement on what “done” means or who is responsible.

    When teams get a vague instruction like “make it accessible,” it’s open to interpretation. Some think it means a full redesign, while others believe a quick automated scan is enough. Without a clear, shared definition, the work either grows too big for the sprint or gets put off.

    At the same time, accessibility rarely belongs to a single role. Designers shape visual clarity and interaction patterns. Engineers handle structure, semantics, and keyboard use. Content teams shape meaning and flow. QA checks what gets validated. Legal and procurement may focus on ADA website compliance and risk exposure. When responsibility is spread without coordination, urgency fades.

    Progress begins when teams agree on a clear definition of what needs to work and make sure responsibility is visible so it doesn’t get lost.

    What Waiting Costs

    Putting off accessibility might seem easier because it saves work now, but the cost grows over time. If accessibility isn’t built in, new features can repeat the same mistakes.

    This is also where teams get caught off guard by scope. Small issues don’t stay small when they repeat. A missing focus style isn’t just one bug—it shows up across buttons, menus, and modals. If teams use different form label approaches, users get inconsistent experiences and more drop-offs. When a design system has low contrast or unclear states, every new feature inherits those problems.

    Support Load and Operational Friction Add Up

    Inaccessible experiences cause repeated problems. People can’t submit forms, open modals, or finish purchases. Each time, someone has to help, or the customer leaves.

    Either way, the cost keeps coming back until the main problem is fixed. Usually, it’s a small set of recurring issues. WebAIM’s 2024 report shows these patterns are common on home pages: missing form input labels (48.6%), empty links (44.6%), and empty buttons (28.2%). These are not abstract WCAG compliance concerns. They interrupt basic tasks and create friction that never fully goes away until the underlying pattern is fixed.

    Brand Trust Erodes in Subtle Ways

    When a site excludes people, the message is clear: you weren’t considered. That’s hard to accept with today’s expectations for inclusion, service, and care.

    Research like the UK ‘Click-Away Pound findings suggests many shoppers with access needs will leave when a site is difficult to use.

    Even for organizations that are not values-led on the surface, trust still matters. It affects retention, referrals, and how people talk about you when you are not in the room.

    Teams Burn Out on “Not Yet”

    Many organizations have people who champion accessibility. They write tickets, share resources, and speak up in reviews. But when their efforts keep getting delayed, motivation drops.

    Over time, this effort becomes exhausting. You might lose the people who care most, or keep them but risk burning them out. When that happens, it’s harder to restart web accessibility work because you lose momentum and context.

    Pressure Creates Rushed Work

    Legal risk is always present, and teams are aware of it. In 2024, UsableNet reported over 4,000 ADA lawsuits related to digital properties. Even when a complaint comes in, organizations still feel pressure to fix accessibility after the fact. Reactive remediation leads to rushed fixes and recurring problems because there’s no system to prevent the same issues from recurring.

    Reframing Web Accessibility as a Shipping Standard

    Making accessibility a shipping standard changes the conversation. It replaces vague intentions with clear steps: what needs to work, how teams check it, and how progress is kept up as the product grows.

    This doesn’t mean you have to do everything at once. It means starting with practical steps, prioritizing based on real user impact, and building a workflow that fits your usual process. That way, web accessibility becomes part of the roadmap instead of competing with it.

    A Practical Path That Makes Progress Visible (Without Blowing Up Scope)

    Start With Critical Journeys, Not “The Whole Site”

    One reason accessibility efforts stall is confusion about scope. “Make the site accessible” can sound like a total rebuild, so teams either over-plan or don’t start at all.

    Instead, start with a few key user journeys that carry the most risk—those that drive revenue, support, or important tasks. For most organizations, these include:

    • Site navigation and global layout
    • Search and filtering
    • Account creation and login
    • Checkout or lead forms
    • Support and onboarding workflows

    The goal isn’t to audit everything at once. It’s to make sure those journeys work with a keyboard and assistive technology, then remove any barriers that stop users from finishing tasks.

    Turn Findings Into a Short Priority List Teams Can Act On

    Automated tools help catch common issues and prevent regressions, but a raw report isn’t a plan. A scan just signals where to look.

    A plan is a short list of issues tied to user impact in the journeys you chose. For example:

    • A filter toggle with no accessible name slows or blocks product discovery.
    • A modal that traps focus breaks flow and can strand users mid-checkout.
    • A form error that is not announced turns submission into guesswork.

    When findings are framed as “what breaks the task,” teams can prioritize them the same way they would any product defect: what blocks completion gets fixed first.

    Create a Leadership Snapshot So the Work Stays Funded

    Web accessibility is easier to support when it’s concrete. A one-page summary that shows:

    • The top blockers in each critical journey
    • Impact (who it blocks and where)
    • Effort (quick fix vs. component refactor)
    • The handful of component-level changes that remove repeated failures

    …gives leaders something they can schedule and staff. It changes the conversation from “we should” to “we can.”

    Fix Patterns, Not Pages

    Momentum builds when you fix shared components and templates, since one improvement appears everywhere. High-impact targets usually include:

    • Modals, drawers, menus, and focus behavior
    • Form inputs, labels, errors, and validation patterns
    • Buttons, links, and interactive controls with missing/unclear names
    • Contrast failures on primary actions and key UI states

    This is how accessibility debt shrinks quickly: fix a form component once, and you reduce friction across checkout, registration, support, and lead generation.

    Define a Release Floor That Fits Normal Delivery

    A release floor keeps web accessibility from slipping back into the backlog after a big push. It also gives teams a shared definition of “done” for new UI, without making it an endless checklist.

    A practical release floor is short and repeatable:

    • Core flows are keyboard navigable and have visible focus.
    • Forms have labels and usable error recovery (not just red text).
    • Interactive components have accessible names, roles, and predictable behavior.
    • New videos include captions.
    • Key actions meet contrast requirements.

    The goal isn’t perfection. It’s to stop avoidable barriers from reaching production.

    A 90-Day Path That Builds Momentum Without Burnout

    Days 1–30: Baseline the Journeys That Matter

    Test the key journeys using keyboard navigation and a screen reader for important areas such as forms, navigation, and checkout. Use automation to find repeated issues, but focus on what affects tasks most. List the shared components that are involved.

    Also, assign someone to own the release floor and component fixes. Without a clear owner, issues tend to drift.

    Days 31–60: Remediate the Highest-Impact Components

    Focus on shared components that cause repeated problems, like dialogs, menus, form patterns, error messages, focus management, and key contrast areas. This is the quickest way to make real progress without increasing scope.

    Days 61–90: Add Guardrails So Progress Sticks

    Make it harder for regressions to slip through by adding simple QA checks on key flows, setting accessibility expectations in code reviews, and monitoring for new issues early. This is how accessibility becomes a regular practice.

    From “Someday” to “Starting Now”

    If web accessibility has been in your backlog for years, you don’t need a huge overhaul to start. Pick one important journey, find the main blockers, fix those components and templates, and set a release floor so the same issues don’t come back next sprint.

    That’s how accessibility stops being a push and becomes part of the way teams deliver.

    If your team needs support defining scope, prioritizing risk, and building a process that holds up over time, 216digital helps organizations run targeted evaluations, remediate at the component level, and maintain progress through ongoing monitoring and guidance.

    To learn more about how the ADA experts at 216digital can help build an ADA WCAG 2.1 compliance strategy to achieve ongoing, real-world accessibility on your terms, schedule an ADA Strategy Briefing.

    Greg McNeil

    December 24, 2025
    Web Accessibility Remediation
    Accessibility, ADA Website Compliance, Benefits of Web Accessibility, business case for web accessibility, Small Business, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
  • Do You Really Need a VPAT? Here’s the Truth

    It often starts the same way. A deal is moving. The product demo went well. Everyone feels good. Then procurement steps in and asks for one document, and the tone shifts.

    “Can you send your VPAT?”

    Now the sales thread pauses. Someone forwards the request to engineering. Someone else pulls up a template they have never seen before. A smart team that knows accessibility basics still feels stuck, because nobody seems able to answer the question behind the question.

    Here is the tension most teams run into. Legally, that document is not always required. Practically, the market can act like it is. And that pressure can lead to rushed paperwork that helps no one.

    So let’s answer the thing people avoid saying clearly. You do not need this document just because someone asked for it. You need it when it serves a real purpose in how your product is bought, reviewed, and trusted. We will walk through how to tell the difference, and how to handle accessibility documentation with confidence.

    VPAT and ACR, Untangled

    First, some quick clarity, because the terms get mixed up constantly.

    The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template is the blank form. The Accessibility Conformance Report is the completed report that comes out of it. Procurement teams often ask for “the template” when they mean the finished report. Vendors often say “report” when they mean the template. Everyone nods anyway, and confusion grows.

    The word voluntary matters, too. This is not a certification. There is no official stamp. No agency signs off. It is your organization describing how your product supports accessibility standards such as WCAG, Section 508, or EN 301 549.

    A strong report does three things well.

    • Reviewers address each criterion line by line, so they have exactly what they need without guesswork.
    • Teams apply support levels accurately, using “Supports,” “Partially Supports,” and “Does Not Support” as intended.
    • Evaluators describe user impact clearly in the remarks, where the real credibility of the evaluation comes through.

    What it should not do is pretend to be a legal shield. It is also not a glossy sales brochure. And it is not something you can publish once and forget, because products change. Accessibility changes with them.

    When a VPAT Is Expected

    There are a few places where accessibility documentation shifts from “nice to have” to “we cannot move forward without it.”

    Selling to U.S. federal agencies is the clearest example. Section 508 procurement relies on accessibility conformance reporting as part of how agencies evaluate information and communication technology. Some state and local government contracts mirror that approach, even when the rules are not written the same way.

    Higher education adds its own pressure. Many universities enforce procurement policies that require digital accessibility. Their teams actively request documentation from vendors, and internal reviewers know exactly what to check and how to evaluate it.

    Large enterprises can be just as strict. Accessibility is frequently bundled into vendor due diligence alongside security, privacy, and compliance. In that environment, the question is less “Do we believe you care about accessibility?” and more “Can we document what we are buying and what the risk looks like?”

    This is also where the market has matured. A decade ago, some buyers accepted any report that looked official. Today, many teams have seen too many vague statements and too many copy-pasted claims. Stakeholders expect details, supported testing, and remarks grounded in real behavior.

    This is why a VPAT request can feel so urgent. It is not always about the law. It is often about procurement habits and risk management.

    The Risk of Treating Documentation Like a Formality

    When teams feel rushed, the instinct is to make the report look clean. That is when trouble starts.

    A report that marks “Supports” across the board looks impressive at a glance, but it often raises questions for anyone experienced. Most real products have some partial support, even if the overall experience is strong. A perfect-looking report can read as unrealistic.

    Overclaiming is where risk grows. If your report says keyboard navigation is supported, but users cannot reach core controls without a mouse, you are not just shipping a bug—you are undermining credibility. When buyers spot the mismatch, they start questioning every accessibility claim you make. When users hit it firsthand, they feel misled, not merely inconvenienced.

    There is also an internal cost. Teams that feel pressure to look perfect tend to hide gaps. That keeps issues out of the backlog and out of planning. It also blocks the thing procurement teams truly need, which is a clear view of limitations.

    An honest report can be imperfect and still be strong. “Partially Supports” paired with clear remarks is often safer, more useful, and more believable than a wall of “Supports.”

    VPAT Myths That Waste Time and Energy

    A few misconceptions show up so often that they are worth calling out directly.

    One myth is that if you do not have the document, you must not be compliant. Documentation and accessibility progress are connected, but they are not the same thing. You can have a report and still have serious barriers. You can be doing thoughtful accessibility work without having a formal report yet.

    Another myth is that anything less than full support is a failure. Partial support is normal, especially for complex interfaces, legacy code, or products with many integrations. Standards are detailed, and not every criterion applies in the same way to every feature.

    A third myth is that once the report is done, you are set for years. Products evolve. Design systems change. Third-party tools update. Browsers and assistive technologies shift. A report that is never revisited becomes stale fast.

    There is also the perfection trap. Some teams believe they must fix every issue before sharing anything. That can delay deals and delay transparency. In many cases, buyers would rather see an honest picture today with a clear improvement plan than wait for a “perfect” report that arrives too late.

    And finally, there is the belief that a developer can fill the template out in an afternoon. Reliable reporting comes from structured evaluation, including assistive technology testing, review of key user flows, and input from multiple roles.

    How to Decide If a VPAT Makes Sense for Your Organization

    If you are trying to decide what to do next, start with your business reality.

    Look at who you sell to today and who you plan to sell to in the next 6 to 12 months. If government, higher education, or enterprise procurement is a real part of your pipeline, documentation may be worth prioritizing.

    Next, look at your current accessibility posture. Have you done a recent audit or structured assessment? Do you already know about critical barriers that would make your report read like wishful thinking? If so, you may need to remediate first, or scope the report carefully so it reflects what is true now.

    Then separate legal pressure from sales pressure. Legal risk depends on your users and product context. Sales pressure is easier to see. Are deals stalling because your buyer needs documentation for their process?

    After that, decide on timing and scope. If an RFP is imminent, you may need the report sooner, even if it is not perfect. If you are not facing procurement demands yet, you may get more value from strengthening accessibility foundations and preparing your internal process first.

    The simplest summary is this. If you are consistently being asked for a VPAT in active deals, it is probably time to treat it as a business asset, not a last-minute chore.

    How to Make the Document Useful, Even When It Is Not Perfect

    The remarks section is where most reports either earn trust or lose it. Generic statements like “Supported” without context do not help reviewers. Clear, specific remarks do.

    Anchor your evaluation to real user journeys. Focus on the flows buyers care about, like account setup, checkout, form completion, and core product tasks. Report what works well and where friction still exists.

    Be direct about limitations and workarounds when they exist. State the gap when a feature has known limitations. Document any available alternative paths. Outline planned remediation with clear, measured intent.Avoid promises you cannot guarantee.

    Tie the report to an accessibility roadmap when possible. Procurement teams respond well to maturity. They want to know you understand your gaps and have a plan to address them.

    Also, prepare the people who will share it. Sales, support, and account managers should understand what the report actually says. Nothing undermines trust faster than a confident verbal promise that contradicts the written document.

    So, Do You Really Need a VPAT, and Where 216digital Fits

    “Others strengthen their accessibility practices first and build documentation once their sales channels make it necessary.

    The healthiest mindset is simple. Honest reporting beats perfect-looking reporting. A clear, user-centered document supports better procurement decisions and helps teams focus on meaningful improvements.

    At 216digital, we help teams evaluate accessibility in ways that map to real user journeys and WCAG criteria, translate findings into accurate conformance reporting that buyers can trust, and build workflows so documentation stays current as your product evolves.

    If you are unsure whether this is a “now” need or a “later” need, we can help you sort that out without pressure. Sometimes the right next step is a VPAT. Sometimes it is an assessment and a plan. Either way, the goal is the same: to communicate accessibility with clarity and to keep improving the experience for the people who rely on it.

    Greg McNeil

    December 23, 2025
    Web Accessibility Remediation
    Accessibility, Accessibility Remediation, Accessibility testing, VPAT, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
1 2 3 … 25
Next Page

Find Out if Your Website is WCAG & ADA Compliant







    216digital Logo

    Our team is full of expert professionals in Web Accessibility Remediation, eCommerce Design & Development, and Marketing – ready to help you reach your goals and thrive in a competitive marketplace. 

    216 Digital, Inc. BBB Business Review

    Get in Touch

    2208 E Enterprise Pkwy
    Twinsburg, OH 44087
    216.505.4400
    info@216digital.com

    Support

    Support Desk
    Acceptable Use Policy
    Accessibility Policy
    Privacy Policy

    Web Accessibility

    Settlement & Risk Mitigation
    WCAG 2.1/2.2 AA Compliance
    Monitoring Service by a11y.Radar

    Development & Marketing

    eCommerce Development
    PPC Marketing
    Professional SEO

    About

    About Us
    Contact

    Copyright 2024 216digital. All Rights Reserved.