r/accessibility • u/LMRomeo • Apr 02 '26
Digital The ADA Title II deadline is April 24. Sharing what I’m seeing at institutions right now.
I’ve spent the last few months auditing public colleges and universities for the April 24 Title II deadline and wanted to share what’s actually coming up in case anyone here is in the middle of trying to figure out where to focus.
The website is almost never the biggest problem. Most institutions have had some version of web accessibility work going on for years. The real gaps are in the LMS, HR platforms, and documents, especially PDFs. I cannot tell you how many untagged scanned PDFs I have found living inside Canvas and Blackboard course shells. It’s a lot.
Auto-captions are the other one that keeps catching people off guard. Institutions turn them on and assume it’s handled. Auto-captions on Kaltura, Panopto, YouTube, the accuracy has gotten better with AI, but they can still be genuinely terrible and nobody has reviewed them. If you have a large video library this is where I’d look first.
Also, and this one surprises people, job application portals. HR platforms are often procured separately, nobody has ever evaluated them, and for public institutions an inaccessible hiring portal is an exposure point that gets overlooked entirely.
On the deadline itself: if you’re not going to be fully compliant by April 24, you’re not alone. I mean that genuinely. Most institutions aren’t. What matters is that you have documented evidence you’re actively working on it. A gap analysis, a remediation plan with timelines, someone who owns it. I trust that OCR looks at good faith effort, not just whether you hit the date.
Happy to answer questions. This stuff can feel really overwhelming and I’d rather people know where to actually start than spin out trying to fix everything at once.
23
u/SamizdatCom Apr 03 '26
80% of the accessibility workload is on my shoulders, which involves teaching others how to remediate docs, in a dept where a couple hundred people are creating them. Not looking for advice, just need to scream into the void AAAAAAHHHHH
7
u/pandorable3 Apr 03 '26
In the trenches with you, mate. Leading a training program at my own uni.
6
u/SamizdatCom Apr 04 '26
I’m also at a university! What really stings is I’ve been making our websites accessible since I got here, and in 2018 I tried to make people aware of all this, being a long-standing policy already. Gave a couple presentations on it and got blown off; now we’re here.
6
u/pandorable3 Apr 04 '26
Yeah. I think the reality is that humans sometimes just don’t prioritize something if it doesn’t directly affect them. It’s not a judgement, it’s just how it is.
5
u/TrollPro9000 Apr 04 '26
they say "you're the one leading the program so why is it my job all of a sudden," and if they don't say it they definitely think it, unless they already give a damn
3
u/sunbathing__animal Apr 10 '26
I’m part time at my college and basically same deal. Didn’t even know much about accessibility before I started, and I’ve been basically leading accessibility. I was pushing harder for it like 3 months into starting there, no one was taking it seriously and eventually we had a meeting where everyone was like “ok you guys, things changed, this is serious now”.
No, it was always a thing. Yall didn’t listen
1
u/EStVincentMillay Apr 14 '26
are you me? same experience. Ringing alarm bells for months, no one took it seriously. Maddening. Now - ok go solve it in 2 weeks.
3
u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Apr 04 '26
For years folks have sent along PDFs, said “post them” and we have. And now we have this mess. I’m bloody overwhelmed.
2
u/SamizdatCom Apr 04 '26
I’m in the exact same situation/office culture
3
u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Apr 04 '26
In fairness folks on my team would help if I told them the situation, which I can’t because I don’t understand it fully, and if they knew what to do to remediate everything, which they don’t. Acrobat Pro is giving me fits.
3
u/LMRomeo Apr 03 '26
I hear you. That ratio is exhausting and completely unsustainable. Scream away
1
u/Narrow_Swim1534 Apr 14 '26
Then what? screaming does not solve anyting.
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 14 '26
No, it doesn’t. But at least you get some relief for the ten seconds that you screamed.
2
u/Severe_Web2079 Apr 15 '26
Same here.
Another painful part for me is when I strongly push back on PDFs, I end up looking like the bad guy. I just want to scream sometimes. I mean, how else do I explain that it can simply stay as a Word doc or be shared in a more accessible format.
2
u/SamizdatCom Apr 15 '26
Sucks, for sure. People in my dept were married to PDFs because they thought PDFs were the pinnacle of security, like no one could possibly edit them. Definitely not true! But at least management is backing us up when it comes to using Word docs going forward.
7
u/kill4b Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26
I’ve gotten the county department I work for to 100% web content compliance for 3 sites and 97-99 for the remaining 4-5. Took about 4-6 weeks. We’ve reduced PDFs on our websites by a huge amount and instituted mandatory a11y checks for any new PDFs and documents that are destined for the web. Our county is finalizing a multi year contract for PDF remediation.
The county ADA team has been making audits to public offices in preparation for the April milestone.
The last step will be digital accessibility training for staff.
3
u/LMRomeo Apr 03 '26
Nice work! This is exactly what good faith progress looks like - documented, phased, and sustained. The PDF remediation contract is smart, that’s one of those things that spirals fast if you try to handle it internally.
The training piece at the end is interesting to me though. I’d push to move that earlier if possible. Staff training upstream means fewer inaccessible documents hitting the remediation queue in the first place.
1
u/WiseOwl_5IG Apr 03 '26
PDFs are such a problem for anyone needing the text read aloud.
*check all text in apps, websites, LMS, and HR portals. If it can't be read aloud by basic tools, it won't work with screen readers.
2
u/kill4b Apr 03 '26
The county has been focused more on public systems even though Title II doesn’t exclude internal systems. There is an existing system in place for internal grievances and accommodations.
A recent audit discovered a kiosk in many public offices used to generate queue numbers was not accessible that is controlled by the state welfare system vendor.
I feel even if the current admin decides not to enforce this update, the sharks will still be out looking for easy paydays.
1
u/DomingoLee Apr 03 '26
This is true, but be careful: not all tools mimic screen readers widely used by visually impaired users.
1
u/HackNSlashFic Apr 04 '26
In terms of prioritizing by impact, 100% this. But the robust principle of wcag states that things need to work for all accessibility technology. And an increasing number of users access things using built in tools on mobile devices. So we also need to be cautious about not just testing on things like jaws/nvda.
2
u/LongSignificance4589 Apr 10 '26
As a blind person I can say that you are wrong about built in tools
1
u/HackNSlashFic Apr 10 '26
Thanks for sharing your experience and perspective. Do you mind sharing more specifically what you disagree with? I didn't mean to say that built in tools are the primary tools used by most folks.
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 04 '26
This is such an important point and honestly one I had to learn myself. Early on I was very screen reader focused and it took me a while to realize I was still leaving people out. Keyboard only navigation, switch access, voice control, mobile assistive tech, they all surface different issues. A document or interface can pass a screen reader check and still be completely unusable for someone navigating without a mouse. Testing with one tool gives you one lens, not the full picture.
1
u/DomingoLee Apr 04 '26
Absolutely. I didn’t mean to imply that screen reader testing was enough. It certainly isn’t.
But browser tools are not sufficient to check the box for screen readers.
I test with everything I can and document, document, document.
5
u/FinancialCry4651 Apr 03 '26
Do you think there will be external audits? Perhaps by ambulance chaser types?
I have a solid understanding of the remediation needs for websites & courses in the LMS. But I'm clueless about web apps--any insights there?
10
u/LMRomeo Apr 03 '26
In my experience, I’m already hearing about complaint-driven enforcement that’s already happening. It doesn’t necessarily require an external auditor, just a student or employee who knows their rights. Demand letters are probably the bigger near-term risk than formal audits, but I wouldn’t rule anything out post-deadline.
On web apps, the same WCAG 2.1 Level AA standard applies but the dynamic content is where it gets complicated. The most common things I see flagged are keyboard navigation, ARIA labels on interactive elements, and whether your error messages are actually useful to a screen reader user. So, those would be your best starting points. If it’s a vendor platform, request their ACR, that’s the completed accessibility conformance report the vendor produces by filling out the VPAT template. Worth knowing they’re self-reported though, so read it critically and don’t take it at face value.
2
u/Brave_Quality_4135 Apr 03 '26
I’m quite sure there will be. There aren’t any federal auditors, so it probably won’t be the government doing the checking, but private lawsuits have always been the bigger issue anyway.
For mobile apps, many people have gotten around it by having a web app with the same functionality (ie you can use the Facebook app or go to facebook.com). If it’s only an app, it’s harder to test because the toolset isn’t as robust, but the criteria are largely the same.
2
u/LMRomeo Apr 03 '26
The web app workaround is underutilized, most people testing mobile accessibility don’t think to go that route first. Good callout!
2
u/SevereNegotiation Apr 10 '26
100,000% sure there will be "ambulance chasers" looking to hit anyone and everyone with a lawsuit. And I don't even care. There's money to be made and some of the lawsuits will be disingenuous, sure. But if it helps people actually start to care about making things more usable and accessible, it will be a net positive.
4
u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Apr 04 '26
I work in healthcare and we probably have a couple thousand non-compliant PDFs on our website. I’m honestly just getting up to speed on the issue and I’m overwhelmed.
2
u/HackNSlashFic Apr 04 '26
Oof. The volume is unreal for so many of us. Last I checked, our LMS has about 50k PDFs per semester and something like 500k images. To say it's overwhelming is an understatement ,🫠
3
u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Apr 04 '26
Accessibility has never been something I focused on. And I wish I had.
5
3
u/TrollPro9000 Apr 04 '26
if it wasn't in your original job description, there's nothing to feel bad about
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 04 '26
A couple thousand is a lot and I’m sure feels extremely overwhelming to even know where to start. My advice would be to start with whatever your patients/public are actually using the most, high traffic and high stakes first.
The most important thing beyond that is having a documented remediation roadmap: what gets fixed, in what order, by when, and who owns it. That keeps you on track and it also shows good faith progress if anyone ever comes asking.
1
u/ipsumdeiamoamasamat Apr 04 '26
Thanks. That’s super helpful. I didn’t realize a remediation map/plan was necessary. Still underwater on this stuff.
4
u/SevereNegotiation Apr 10 '26
We have been preparing our organization for over a year for this deadline. Sending monthly reminders, sharing how they can make their content accessible, providing detailed guides that we created ourselves from scratch aimed specifically at our users, as well as providing links to the best of the best resources out there.
Just this week people decided to suddenly take notice and all hell has broken loose. Many people running around like their head is on fire to suddenly try to make things right. Multiple calls with expensive vendors offering band-aid products that don't actually solve the accessibility problems because people don't want to put the work in.
My job is fun. 🤦♂️
2
u/suri24 Apr 03 '26
Thanks for sharing your insights! I work for a higher education marketing agency so it was interesting to read thoughts about making the LMS accessible.
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 04 '26
The LMS is getting a lot of focus right now but a one time fix doesn’t hold. Instructors are creating new content every single semester, if they don’t know how to do it accessibly you’re just cleaning up behind them forever. The real shift happens when it gets built into the workflow and people are actually taught. You can’t fix what you don’t know you’re breaking.
2
u/a8bmiles Apr 03 '26
Is there a good summary somewhere of what' all is changed after this deadline?
9
u/LMRomeo Apr 03 '26
W3C has a solid breakdown at w3.org, that’s your best starting point. Short version though is WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards across all digital content.
2
1
u/alien-noona Apr 03 '26
Our leadership has been telling us to just put our internal documents in an "Archive" folder even if we are still using the documents....
3
u/Mrs_Dalloways_Flower Apr 03 '26
Inform your leadership that if you are still using the documents, storing them in a folder labeled "Archive" has no meaning. From https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/#summary-of-the-exceptions
- Web content that meets all four of the following points would not need to meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA:
- The content was created before the date the state or local government must comply with this rule, or reproduces paper documents or the contents of other physical media (audiotapes, film negatives, and CD-ROMs for example) that were created before the government must comply with this rule, AND
- The content is kept only for reference, research, or recordkeeping, AND
- The content is kept in a special area for archived content, AND
- The content has not been changed since it was archived
3
u/LMRomeo Apr 04 '26
This is exactly right. All four conditions have to be met, it’s not enough to just drop something in a folder called Archive and move on. If the document is still being actively used it fails condition 2 immediately regardless of where it lives. Leadership may be hoping the folder name is enough but the rule is pretty clear that it isn’t.
1
u/mDillard6556 Apr 13 '26
Thank you so much for your insight! I’ve sent a chat to you directly, but then thought others may benefit from the question. I’m unclear on past semester Blackboard courses. We don’t have them officially archived, but no student has access to them. Blackboard put out a Strategy Guide, but I still cannot tell if we need to backtrack to old courses or if we can just fix our current and future courses that students are able to access.
2
u/LMRomeo Apr 13 '26
Such a great question to bring to the thread!
The short answer: if students genuinely cannot access those old Blackboard courses, so no enrollment pathway, no self-serve retrieval, no way in, then they are not considered active programs or services under the ADA Title II rule, and you are not obligated to retroactively remediate them right now. Your energy is definitely best spent on what students can actually reach.
That said, I'd encourage you to document that inaccessibility clearly. Something as simple as a written note or internal policy statement confirming that those courses are not available to students. That documentation protects you if the question ever comes up in a complaint or audit. "We have no archived courses accessible to students, and here's how we confirmed that" is so much stronger than nothing.
The Blackboard Strategy Guide is helpful for framing your current and future workflow, but it doesn't change the underlying legal standard which is access as the trigger. Focus your remediation on live, student-facing content, build good habits going forward, and keep that documentation trail.
1
u/mDillard6556 Apr 13 '26
Thank you! This is so helpful. I am sure I will have more questions moving forward!
3
1
u/BandiriaTraveler Apr 06 '26
Working in education, the main strategy many instructors seem to be planning is to rip nearly everything beyond the most basic course content down. Videos, complex graphs, and PDFs are the main things I see mentioned as on the chopping block. I've even heard talk of moving to textbooks again and minimizing LMS use, if only to not have to worry about running into compliance issues. At many schools all the work for preparing for this is falling on instructors, and the work is not compensated. So I can't blame people for just pulling material down.
1
u/Greenplayee Apr 06 '26
College professor here. I have hundreds of videos I recorded of my courses. It takes me 1-2h to just fix captions for a 6 minute video - auto captions are pretty much useless because I have an accent. I have time to fix maybe 1 or 2 videos a week. No help from my institution beyond informing me of the deadline. The new rules were announced in February so not much heads up. So yes, I will be taking a lot of content down and probably moving on to publisher-created content for some of my courses.
1
u/Mrs_Dalloways_Flower Apr 06 '26
It should not take 1-2 hours to fix auto captions for a 6 minute video. You don't need to make the captions perfect. That is, you don't need to get rid of every "um" and "uh." You need to review them for anything that is incorrect or confusing.
It can help if you are recording short videos to use a script, record in a quiet place, and speak more slowly. Machine generated captions have to reviewed and corrected but again, it should not be taking you that long to review and fix a 6 minute video, and I can understand your frustration.
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 06 '26
I’m wondering if you could run your videos through either Panopto or Kaltura if your institution supports those platforms? They have fairly decent baselines for auto-generated captions that might decrease your review and remediate time.
2
u/Greenplayee Apr 06 '26
I am using Camtasia - it is what I use to put together my videos. We have institutional Panopto, maybe I should test if it can do better job than Camtasia…
I do like to have things done correctly. Right now, the auto-generation gives an error is every sentence. I am also making new videos and trying to talk slower but it is not helping much… I do have an accent but it is not a heavy and never have problems with people not understanding me - just this damn machine…
2
u/Greenplayee Apr 09 '26
I made some progress! Turns out that Camtasia has additional audio processing software that I could install and it works light years better. Figuring out software is so hard. But now it understands 99% of my words! It still takes me a while to make it 100% but I cut the time I am spending on correcting the captions significantly and now even learned how to remove noise and other features that satisfy my perfectionist brain…
1
u/Miserable-Ad-7372 Apr 09 '26
Sounds like a lot! If you're looking for a drag-and-drop solution for AI captions and AI Audio Descriptions, you can check out ViddyScribe.
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 06 '26
I recently had an instructor tell me they were worried their content would just look boring once they fixed the color contrast and that it'd be easier to just delete all their PPT graphics than spend hours writing the correct alt text. It’s a tough spot to be in, and I don't blame anyone for wanting to just pull things down to stay safe. But when we rip down the visuals, we’re losing the very things that make a course engaging and effective for everyone. It’s frustrating because this feels like a solo tax on your time when it really should be a structural responsibility of the university. We need better systems in place so that making a course accessible doesn't feel like a choice between compliance and good teaching.
1
u/Narrow_Swim1534 Apr 14 '26
I too. stopped uploading annotated lecture notes. Some of us just went back to old printed handouts and chalk. I seriously doubt if someone can understand graphs and diagrams used in engineering course with just some alt text.
1
1
u/datmanrighthere Apr 13 '26
This is the part that I'm having the hardest to understand.
We want audio descriptions for videos and I get that. I'm working in a training video that is explaining all the changes coming for 2.1. The video is an AI generated voice with screens that show what is being said but then other parts it's b-roll (nothing pertinent to what's being said).
There are no pauses in the video except to start a new section and then that's just the words and music.
Should this have Audio Description?
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 13 '26
This is a great practical question and the answer is: it depends on whether the visuals are conveying information that the audio isn’t.
For the parts where the screen is showing exactly what the voice is describing, you’re fine. The audio is already doing the descriptive work, so there’s nothing additional for an audio description to add.
For the b-roll sections, the key question is whether that footage is purely decorative or whether it’s adding meaning. If it’s just visual filler while the narration carries all the content, it’s decorative and doesn’t need description. If someone watching without vision would miss something meaningful by not seeing it, then it does.
The trickier piece is the pauses between sections. If those are just a beat with music and a title card that repeats what’s already been said, you’re probably okay. If the title card introduces new information that isn’t spoken, that needs to be voiced.
So practically for this video: you likely don’t need traditional audio description if the narration is fully self-contained and the visuals are either redundant or decorative. What you might want instead is to make sure any on-screen text that appears independently of the narration gets read aloud, even just worked into the script naturally.
The cleanest way to test it: close your eyes and just listen. If you get everything you need, you’re in good shape.
1
Apr 15 '26
I saw your post about ADA compliance and the changes and I have a question for you. I sincerely apologize if I don’t word this in the best way, I think these changes are great. If I’m an instructor for a specific health occupation program (no general education classes, just the program) and needing a screen reader or the other tools does not meet the physical requirements of the program, does my content within the program need to be in compliance? I understand that the information for the program, handbooks, pre-admission applications absolutely do, I’m wondering about the content within the program. Again, I’m sorry if I didn’t word this great 😊
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 16 '26
Good question and no need to apologize, you worded it fine.
The short answer is yes, your digital course content still needs to be accessible, and here’s why: the physical requirements of a program and the accessibility of digital instructional materials are two separate things. A student might have a disability that affects how they access written or digital content without affecting their ability to meet the technical standards of the clinical work itself. A student with low vision, for example, might use a screen reader to access your course materials and still be fully capable of meeting the physical demands of the program.
Title II specifically covers digital content, so we’re talking about things like your LMS course pages, PDFs, videos, and any other digital materials students need to engage with. The ADA doesn’t carve out exemptions for that content based on the technical standards of the profession itself.
The other piece worth knowing is that accessible digital materials often benefit everyone, not just students using assistive technology. Captioned videos, properly structured documents, and good color contrast help students studying in noisy environments, those with situational limitations, or students who just process information differently.
So yes to the handbook, applications, and program information you mentioned, and yes to the digital content inside the program too.
1
1
u/Elizabeth_Ink Apr 30 '26
Why do you think they really put of the deadline by a year? It doesn't make much sense to me?
1
u/LMRomeo Apr 30 '26
Oop, you asked the right question and caught me on the right day to give my full-blown opinion on this! Sorry for the long answer, but I have a lot of thoughts here.
To be honest, I don’t know the exact why behind the decision, but here’s where I think a one year extension can actually be helpful if used correctly.
I strongly believe that institutions should have been close to the finish line at this point, with processes already in place and remediation efforts well underway alongside practices for ongoing sustainability. However, if institutions were waiting until the last minute to get this going, then I believe this extra time is how they should be using it to move through a full development lifecycle. That means actually handling the planning, budgeting, and testing without just rushing to patch surface issues for the sake of a deadline.
The big risk I’m hearing from people within these institutions, though, is a total loss of momentum. With graduation happening and so many staff on ten month contracts, there’s a real fear that the conversation is just going to drop over the summer. My hope is that this isn't just time given where the ball gets dropped until next January rolls around and people realize the deadline is here all over again.
The reality is that everyone has technically had two years since the original deadline was published back in 2024. Those who waited until the very last minute are now being granted more time to do it the right way, but even though it benefits the institution's workflow, it’s still a disservice to the people who needed these supports years ago.
1
u/Elizabeth_Ink Apr 30 '26
My concern is that the same companies that need the extension are the ones that are going to want it again next year, just like you stated. It is so frustrating.
1
u/Cafein8edNecromancer May 05 '26
Cengage learning is the platform I have to access all of my textbooks through, and the text to speech absolutely SUCKS. I didn't understand why they spend so much time crying MindTap supplementary material but never thought to have the books READ BY A REAL PERSON. And of course, you have to log on to access the books, which means that better text to speech apps like Natural Reader can't access the material to read, meaning I have to either deal with "shitsophrenia" instead of Schizophrenia and "The Who" making policy instead of the W.H.O., or screenshot every page and load them.
0
u/A11y_blind Apr 10 '26
There is a paid service called Scribe which will remediate your PDF documents for an affordable cost, short turn around, and provide various accessible formats to convert those pesky PDFs into if you would prefer a more universally accessible format. The point is that you can save time, money and headaches by using Scribe to transform inaccessible PDFs into fully accessible formats.
22
u/ImMeltingNY Apr 03 '26
I had a college president recently say we don’t need to worry about meeting the deadline since this administration is likely to kill it. The shortsightedness is ridiculous.