In April 2024, the Department of Justice updated ADA Title II, requiring all public colleges and universities to ensure that websites, mobile apps, digital course content, and third-party tools conform to WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards.
With compliance deadlines approaching in April 2026 for large institutions and April 2027 for smaller ones, the stakes are high. Non-compliance risks lawsuits, federal investigations, reputational damage, and even loss of funding.
But as our recent webinar with experts Dr. Tawnya Means (Inspire Higher Ed), Dr. Becca Mason (UC Berkeley), Dr. Rae Mancilla (University of Pittsburgh), and Liesel Slingers (Online Education Services) emphasized, accessibility isn’t just about avoiding penalties. It’s about equity, inclusion, and preparing institutions for a sustainable digital future.
Here are five key themes from the discussion.
1. Accessibility Improves Learning for the Most Overlooked in Learning Spaces
While often framed as a legal requirement, accessibility ultimately benefits everyone. Captions support not only deaf students but also learners in noisy environments or those studying in a second language. Clear headings improve navigation for screen reader users and comprehension for all.
Panelists stressed that accessibility should be seen as a quality enhancer.
“If we think about accessibility and why it matters beyond compliance, there’s a really crucial reframe here, and that is: while these requirements are often approached as legal obligations, their true value actually extends far beyond just avoiding litigation. The real opportunity here lies in moving beyond reactive fixes to proactivity and inclusion. So, forward-thinking institutions are embedding accessibility as a core component of their institutional mission and reputation. They’re recognizing that inclusive design isn’t just about meeting these Department of Justice mandates, but about delivering on higher education’s fundamental promise of equitable access across learning. When institutions can prioritize digital accessibility, they create learning environments that benefit all students.”
– Tawnya Means
2. Accessibility Requires Institutional Strategy
Meeting ADA Title II standards cannot be achieved through one-off fixes or by tasking a single staff member with responsibility. Sustainable progress requires a governance model that spans the entire institution. This often means establishing cross-functional committees or task forces that bring together academic units, IT, communications, and instructional design to create shared accountability.
Strategic frameworks also ensure that accessibility work does not stall at the level of individual enthusiasm. Institutions that rely on “lone heroes” risk burnout and inconsistency. By contrast, those that embed accessibility into policy, planning, and everyday workflows are able to track progress, set benchmarks, and create training and resources that scale. Effective strategies also include appointing dedicated accessibility coordinators, aligning procurement processes with compliance requirements, and developing phased remediation plans that prioritize the most impactful content first.
“We did start with a one large committee, a digital accessibility committee, a number of years ago, and that committee was charged with creating benchmarks and an electronic information technology plan that could be rolled out across the institution.”
– Rae Mancilla
“We learned early on that relying on a single accessibility champion quickly leads to burnout. Real progress came when we built cross-disciplinary task forces and shared responsibility across the institution.”
– Liesel Slingers
3. Faculty Support Is Essential
Expecting faculty to shoulder the full weight of digital accessibility is neither fair nor sustainable. Instructors are subject matter and pedagogy experts, not specialists in remediation, coding, or standards compliance. Yet for years, higher education has placed responsibility at the individual course level, leaving faculty overwhelmed by the prospect of retrofitting thousands of documents or captioning hours of legacy video content.
True progress requires institutions to reframe accessibility as an organizational obligation. That means providing the structures, staff, and tools to make accessible design routine rather than exceptional. Faculty should be equipped with literacy in high-impact practices like applying proper heading structures, writing meaningful alt text, or running built-in accessibility checkers. But the heavy lifting must be shared. Complex tasks such as remediating PDFs, providing audio descriptions, or auditing multimedia require institutional support.
Sustainable strategies include:
- Training that prioritizes efficiency: focusing on changes with the greatest impact on learners.
- Accessible templates and workflows: building inclusive design into course development from the start.
- Dedicated staff and specialists: partnering with faculty on advanced or legacy accessibility challenges.
- Automated tools: caption generators, transcript services, and document checkers that reduce time burdens.
This approach reduces the perception of accessibility as an “impossible ask” and instead frames it as a shared responsibility, which ensures that faculty remain focused on teaching while institutions safeguard compliance and inclusion.
“Just as we don’t ask faculty to design and build the physical ramps to ensure access to their classrooms, I think we also shouldn’t expect them to single-handedly ensure that every digital asset is WCAG compliant. That means universities have to step up with training, software, and dedicated accessibility staff.”
– Becca Mason
4. Best Practices Balance Compliance and Innovation
Title II compliance requires institutions to distinguish between critical issues and best practices. Critical issues such as headings, alt text, and sufficient color contrast are non-negotiable because they determine whether content is even usable with assistive technologies. Best practices, by contrast, are more interpretive. They involve judgment calls about how far to go in creating universally usable materials and how to balance accessibility for some learners with usability for others.
The webinar highlighted how this duality can create challenges. For example, a hyper-accessible document may inadvertently reduce clarity for students who do not need certain accommodations. Institutions must therefore weigh competing needs, aiming for “accessible enough” to meet legal obligations and “accessible by design” to advance equity and innovation. Faculty can reduce complexity by avoiding difficult formats like PDFs, using accessible templates, and adopting plain language across materials. Engaging librarians and students with disabilities in the design process can also surface issues early, saving time and effort later.
Key practices include:
- Replace PDFs with Word or Google Docs whenever possible to simplify compliance.
- Apply plain language and reduce jargon to improve comprehension across audiences.
- Pilot test with assistive technologies to identify real barriers students face in practice.
“Stop using PDFs for your documents and instead use Google Docs or other word processing tools that have accessibility checkers built in…PDF remediation is really difficult and requires the expertise of a digital accessibility expert.”
– Becca Mason
5. Tools and Resources To Lighten the Lift
Technology plays an essential role in scaling accessibility, but automation alone cannot ensure quality. Institutions that rely exclusively on AI captioning or automated audits often discover accuracy gaps, particularly in technical or STEM content. The webinar underscored that while automation reduces manual work, every digital resource still needs human review to guarantee true accessibility.
Institutions should take a layered approach. Built-in LMS checkers can flag basic issues. Third-party integrations like Allyant’s CommonLook Online or UDOIT provide deeper diagnostics and reporting. Captioning vendors offer accuracy above what automated systems deliver, though at a cost. AI-driven audits can scan websites and course repositories efficiently, but their recommendations must be validated by trained staff. Beyond choosing the right tools, universities must also embed procurement policies that hold vendors accountable, since the legal burden for accessibility always rests with the institution.
Recommended resources include:
- LMS checkers (Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle) for course-level audits.
- Third-party integrations such as Allyant, UDOIT, or Grackle Docs.
- Captioning vendors (e.g., 3Play Media, Verbit) for accurate multimedia support.
- AI-assisted audits to prioritize large-scale remediation.
“Some vendors provide a suite of services that can help you identify and remediate common accessibility barriers.”
– Rae Mancilla
“At the end of the day, accessibility is a human problem. Therefore, it requires human oversight and insight.”
– Liesel Slingers
Final Word: From Compliance to Inclusivity
As moderator Tawnya Means concluded, the April deadlines are not endpoints but milestones in a longer cultural shift. Compliance may be the law, but inclusion is the mission. Institutions that embed accessibility into governance, design, and culture will not just avoid penalties, they’ll expand their reach, improve learning for all students, and model the values higher education stands for.
Take Your Next Steps from Compliance to Inclusivity: Want to see where your institution stands? Start with an accessibility audit of your digital assets, then build a governance model that shares responsibility across campus. Get in touch with OES to partner with us in sustainable accessibility best practices.
