ADA Title II Revision: Navigating WCAG 2.1 Compliance Deadlines and Exceptions for Public Entities

ADA Title II Revision – Addition Of Technical
Requirements For Accessibility Of Web Information And Services Of State And Local Government Entities

Editor’s Note: This post is adapted from the article, “ADA Title II Revision – Addition of Technical Requirements For Accessibility Of Web Information And Services Of State And Local Government Entities”, originally published in the March 2025 issue of Mealey’s® Litigation Report: Cyber Tech & E-Commerce. Mealey’s is a subscription-based information provider and division of LexisNexis.

As of June 24, 2024, the Department of Justice issued final rules revising the regulation implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to broaden the title’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication by establishing specific requirements, including the adoption of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA by reference, for making web, mobile applications, and content accessible to the services, programs, and activities offered by state and local government entities to the public.

§ 35.200 Requirements refines the mandate by defining covered technologies and compliance due dates:

(a) General. A public entity shall ensure that the following are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities:

1. Web content that a public entity provides or makes available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements.

2. Mobile apps that a public entity provides or makes available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements.

(b) Requirements.

1. Beginning April 24, 2026, a public entity, other than a special district government, with a total population of 50,000 or more shall ensure that the web content and mobile apps that the public entity provides or makes available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, comply with Level A and Level AA success criteria and conformance requirements specified in WCAG 2.1, unless the public entity can demonstrate that compliance with this section would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens.

2. Beginning April 26, 2027, a public entity with a total population of less than 50,000 or any public entity that is a special district government shall ensure that the web content and mobile apps that the public entity provides or makes available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, comply with Level A and Level AA success criteria and conformance requirements specified in WCAG 2.1, unless the public entity can demonstrate that compliance with this section would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens.

From a technology perspective, Title II now requires covered public entities to evaluate and understand the degree to which acquired or built websites, web applications, web content, mobile applications, and content adhere to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is a set of principle-based success criteria created and maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The WCAG attempts to focus on the user experience and is technology agnostic. The sample below shows the first WCAG 2.1 success criteria, 1.1.1 Non-text Content. This success criteria requires that non-text content, such as the inclusion of an image, contain a textual description that assistive technology users can perceive, such as those that support the blind community. Rather than attempting to provide every possible technical specification, the W3C has elected to describe the desired accessible state, leaving the specifics to underlying development technologies.

Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A)
All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose…

Technology Examples:

• Provide alternate text for images in web content and documents.
• Provide alternate text or information for mats for charts and graphs for web applications that contain complex data.
• Provide textual descriptions for image-based buttons for web technologies.

This separation of guidelines from technologies creates a technology-agnostic, principle-based framework applicable to current web-based, mobile, and content-creation technologies and is extendable to any future technology. Adopting the WCAG 2.1 level AA guidelines addresses a long-standing criticism of the previous Title II iteration’s dependence on general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication, which did not have technical thresholds for compliance. Having a required common guideline removes the appearance of arbitrary audit standards and sets a clear bar for public entities covered under Title II.

WCAG Evaluation
Title II requires the evaluation of current and future covered technologies and content against WCAG 2.1 Level AA. It does not prescribe how to conduct the evaluation, recognizing that each technology has unique testing tools and processes. See Table 1: Sample Conformance Testing Technologies.

Table 1: Sample Conformance Testing Technologies

Once the public entity has audited the technology or content, Title II requires an entity to make an acquisition or use determination. But before exploring the ramifications of being in or out of WCAG compliance, let’s review how applications and content enter an organization. This is important as Title II is not prescriptive in how internal policies and procedures are enacted, leaving organizations to ensure that all means of acquiring or developing covered products and content are properly evaluated and acted upon.

Product Acquisition

Historically, Title II did not provide specific requirements or processes for acquiring technologies or producing content. With the revision of Title II, covered entities must now evaluate acquired technologies and content against WCAG 2.1 level AA guidelines. This need for evaluation applies equally to purchased products and products acquired at no cost. For example, obtaining a Learning Management System has the same WCAG evaluation requirements regardless of whether it is acquired through a vendor purchase or as a free, open-source product. While it could be argued that this requirement to evaluate all technologies and content regardless of acquisition means has always existed, many organizations are just now extending their policies and practices to encompass all product procurements irrespective of size, intended audience, or cost – to include zero-dollar acquisitions.

Service Acquisition

Procuring vendor services that result in the creation of web, mobile, or content deliverables has historically relied on contractual vehicles such as standard contract terms and conditions, indemnification clauses, and acceptance testing requirements. While the mechanics of service acquisition have not changed, we anticipate that each of these acquisition pillars will be updated to include the requirement that all deliverables generally made available within the organization or externally will need to prove WCAG 2.1 level AA compliance.

Internal Application

Once again, Title II is not prescriptive in how a covered entity evaluates the state of new and existing internally developed web and mobile applications. Organizations must now have processes to evaluate internally developed web and mobile applications against the WCAG 2.1 level AA success criteria. This requirement is challenging for many organizations lacking strong tracking, testing, and approval processes, especially given the challenging compliance due dates, April 24, 2026 / April 26, 2027.

Internal Content Development

Content developed in support of services, programs, and activities is also subject to evaluation against WCAG 2.1 level AA success criteria. The covered content includes materials created in Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and PDF, as well as other rich materials such as videos, audio, social media posts, etc. Materials such as memos, internal working papers, and materials not intended to be provided to support the service, program, or activity are excluded.

Maintained

Regardless of how the public entity acquired or produced the web application, mobile application, or content, it must be evaluated and a determination made before April 24, 2026 / April 26, 2027. Title II does not have a general grandfather, legacy, or other pre-existing clause that could delay evaluating existing covered technologies or content against the WCAG 2.1. This lack of a safe harbor is putting a strain on many public entities, which must now inventory and evaluate technologies and content used in the delivery of services, programs, and activities.

In summary, any web-based application, mobile application, or content built, acquired, or maintained by the public entity in support of services, programs, and activities must be evaluated against WCAG 2.1 level AA.

Determination Process

Title II intends for organizations to understand the degree to which covered technologies and content meet WCAG 2.1 level AA. Based on that understanding, the organization must make an acquisition or continued use determination. For this article, we will group the determinations into four categories: Compliant, Exceptions, Duties, and Discontinue Use. See Table 2: Cited Title II Determination Categories.

Table 2: Cited Title II Determination Categories

Compliant

Title II has four compliant gates that allow an organization to build, acquire, or continue the use of covered technologies and content.

Compliant: WCAG 2.1 Level AA Compliant plus Effective Communication

Once a covered technology or piece of content has been audited and proven to meet WCAG 2.1 level AA and effective communication requirements, an organization is free to acquire or continue use. There are no specific documentation requirements under Title II, but it is an author recommendation that a public entity maintain audit records.

Compliant: 35.202 Conforming alternate versions

Title II allows public entities to create compliant, alternate versions of non-compliant applications and content that do not conform to WCAG requirements when technical or legal limitations make compliance impossible. However, the title has put guardrails on these limitations to ensure that this loophole is not exploited or become the primary means of circumventing the main goal of providing accessible technologies and content:

(a) A public entity may use conforming alternate versions of web content, as defined by WCAG 2.1, to comply with § 35.200 only where it is not possible to make web content directly accessible due to technical or legal limitations.

Under WCAG, a “conforming alternate version” is a separate web page that, among other things, is accessible, up to date, contains the same information and functionality as the inaccessible web page, and can be reached via a conforming page or an accessibility-supported mechanism.
… Section 35.202, therefore, specifies that the use of conforming alternate versions is permitted only in limited, defined circumstances, which represents a slight departure from WCAG 2.1. Section 35.202(a) states that a public entity may use conforming alternate versions of web content to comply with §35.200 only where it is not possible to make web content directly accessible due to technical or legal limitations.

Examples of conforming alternate versions include:

• Accessible PDF Alternative to a Scanned Document – If a government agency posts a scanned PDF (which is not readable by screen readers), they must provide an accessible, text-based PDF or an HTML version.
• Text Transcript for Audio/Video Content – If a city council meeting is live-streamed without captions, they must provide a transcript or captions afterward.
• Audio Description for Videos – A public transit agency posts an informational video about a new route but does not include visual descriptions for blind users. They must provide an audio-described version.
• Accessible Online Forms – If a government agency provides an online form that is not screen reader accessible, they must offer an HTML version, a fillable accessible PDF, or other equivalent alternative.

It is important to note that Title II has substantially refined the use of phone support as a sole replacement for non-compliant technologies and content. As noted below, phone support does not offer the same convenience and availability as online technologies and, therefore, requires additional consideration.

The Department received a comment arguing that providing phone support in lieu of a WCAG 2.1-compliant website should constitute equivalent facilitation. As discussed in the section entitled “History of the Department’s Title II Web-Related Interpretation and Guidance,” the Department no longer believes telephone lines can realistically provide equal access to people with disabilities. Websites—and often mobile apps—allow members of the public to get information or request a service within just a few minutes, and often to do so independently. Getting the same information or requesting the same service using a staffed telephone line takes more steps and may result in wait times or difficulty getting the information.

Phone support is still allowed to supplement an accessibility strategy but cannot be used as a substitute for making digital services accessible.

Compliant: 35.203 Equivalent facilitation

Equivalent facilitation has been a long-standing principle of the ADA and accessibility in general. Section 35.203 provides that nothing prevents a public entity from using designs, methods, or techniques as alternatives to those prescribed in the regulation, provided that such alternatives result in substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability.

The key aspects of the provision include:

• Must Provide Equal or Greater Accessibility – Alternative solutions must ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the same usability, safety, and convenience as those outlined in the ADA Standards.
• Allows for Innovation and Emerging Technology – It acknowledges that accessibility technology evolves, and sometimes newer or better solutions emerge that were not originally included in the ADA’s technical standards.
• Still Must Ensure Effective Communication and Equal Access – In digital accessibility (e.g., websites, apps), equivalent facilitation means that an alternative approach must be just as effective as WCAG 2.1 AA compliance.
• Not an Excuse for Noncompliance – Entities cannot use equivalent facilitation as a justification for failing to comply with accessibility rules. The alternative method must be proven to be at least as effective.

Alternative acquired, built, or maintained technologies and content can be used provided the public entity can prove that the technology or content provides substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability.

Compliant: 35.205 Effect of noncompliance that has a minimal impact on access

Section 35.205 paints a broad definition of minimal impact:

A public entity that is not in full compliance with the requirements of §35.200(b) will be deemed to have met the requirements of § 35.200 in the limited circumstance in which the public entity can demonstrate that the noncompliance has such a minimal impact on access that it would not affect the ability of individuals with disabilities to use the public entity’s web content or mobile app to do any of the following in a manner that provides substantially equivalent timeliness, privacy, independence, and ease of use:

(a) Access the same information as individuals without disabilities;
(b) Engage in the same interactions as individuals without disabilities;
(c) Conduct the same transactions as individuals without disabilities; and
(d) Otherwise, participate in or benefit from the same services, programs, and activities as individuals without disabilities.

This highly subjective section is further refined in the Discussion of Regulatory Text, which uses color contrast as an example. The contrast between foreground and background colors is evaluated using a formula that provides a minimally acceptable ratio. For instance, the WCAG 2.1 success criteria 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) specifies basic text must have a 4.5:1 contrast ratio. The discussion provides an example of an acceptable minimum contrast error as 4.45:1, being close enough to the 4.5:1 standard and an acceptable deviation.

35.201 Exceptions

It is a reality that not all web applications, mobile applications, and content acquired, built, or maintained will meet the WCAG 2.1 level AA requirements. Title II, therefore, provides five exceptions and one exclusion that a public entity can use.

(a) Archived web content

The act best sums up archive content in Section 35.104 Definitions:

“Archived web content” is defined as web content that was created before the date the public entity is required to comply with subpart H of this part, reproduces paper documents created before the date the public entity is required to comply with subpart H, or reproduces the contents of other physical media created before the date the public entity is required to comply with subpart H. Second, the web content is retained exclusively for reference, research, or recordkeeping. Third, the web content is not altered or updated after the date of archiving. Fourth, the web content is organized and stored in a dedicated area or areas clearly identified as being archived. The definition is meant to capture historic web content that, while outdated or superfluous, is maintained unaltered in a dedicated archived area for reference, research, or recordkeeping. The term is used in the exception set forth in § 35.201(a). The Department provides a more detailed explanation of the application of the exception in the section-by-section analysis of § 35.201(a).

There are a few key points that are worth exploring that will cause technical challenges for public entities:

1. The archived content cannot be used as an active element in services, programs, or activities, even if it was created before the required compliance date and is not widely used in the organization. For instance, an inaccessible legacy signup form deprecated by the organization but occasionally used by a single department cannot be considered archived since there are still instances of its use in a program.
2. Public entities may find it challenging to group an entire collection of materials in a dedicated and labeled area. It is insufficient to mark individual documents or other content as archived. Archived content must be grouped and appear in a clearly marked and dedicated website section or other digital conveyance. The intent is that active and archived content should not be mixed.
3. If a public entity modifies archived content, it may invalidate the archive status. There is a lengthy discussion in Section 35.104 Definitions, “Archived Web Content” that explores how the reproduction of printed, typed, handwritten, drawn, painted, otherwise marked on paper, videotapes, audiotapes, film negatives, CD-ROMs, and DVDs created before the required compliance date may not violate the archive stipulations. The exemption includes reproducing the content in a modern format and redacting personally identifying information.

(b) Preexisting conventional electronic documents

The act best sums up Preexisting conventional electronic documents in Section 35.201 Exceptions:

Conventional electronic documents that are available as part of a public entity’s web content or mobile apps before the date the public entity is required to comply with this subpart, unless such documents are currently used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in the public entity’s services, programs, or activities.

These documents are typically in standard electronic formats, such as PDF, Microsoft Word, Excel, or PowerPoint, but may lack accessibility features like screen-reader compatibility, alternative text for images, proper heading structure, or keyboard navigability. These assets can be exceptioned, provided they are not modified after the required compliance date and are not actively used to deliver services, programs, and activities.

(c) Content posted by a third party

Content posted independently by third parties without contractual, formal, or informal arrangements with the public entity is excluded. There is a good discussion in the Content Posted by Third Party section that reinforces a public entity’s inability to ensure compliance of members outside their sphere of control. However, organizations must be aware that even a casual agreement between the organization’s representative and contributor may constitute an informal agreement. In addition, the discussion explicitly excludes from the exception tools or platforms a third party uses to post third-party content. These tools and platforms generally must conform to the technical standard in subpart H of this part.

(d) Individualized, password-protected, or otherwise secured conventional electronic documents

On the surface, the exception for individualized, password-protected, or otherwise secured conventional electronic documents seems straightforward:

Conventional electronic documents that are:
(1) About a specific individual, their property, or their account; and
(2) Password-protected or otherwise secured.

This exception also only applies when the content is individualized for a specific person or their property or account. Examples of individualized documents include medical records or notes about a specific patient, receipts for purchases (like a parent’s receipt for signing a child up for a recreational sports league), utility bills concerning a specific residence, or Department of Motor Vehicles records for a specific person or vehicle.

There are a few traps that public entities should be aware of.

Format: This exception is limited to “conventional electronic documents” as defined in § 35.104. This exception would, therefore, not apply in a case where a public entity makes individualized information available in formats other than a conventional electronic document. For example, if a public medical provider makes individualized medical records available on a password-protected web platform as HTML content (rather than a PDF), that content would not be subject to this exception.

Obligation: The goal of this exception is to give public entities flexibility to provide such documents, or the information contained within such documents, to the individuals with disabilities to whom they pertain in the manner that the entities determine will be most efficient. In short, the organization must still provide an acceptable alternative version of the document to the individual in a timely manner but is not required to amend, fix, or alter the delivered documents. The exemption does not extend to the technology used to deliver the documents.

(e) Preexisting social media posts

Title II provides an exemption for a public entity’s social media posts posted before the public entity’s compliance date.

Preexisting Social Media Posts

Subpart H of this part includes an exception in § 35.201(e) for preexisting social media posts, which provides that the requirements of §35.200 will not apply to a public entity’s social media posts that were posted before the date the public entity is required to comply with subpart H. This means that public entities will need to ensure that their social media posts going forward are compliant with the requirements in subpart H beginning on the compliance date outlined in § 35.200(b), but not before that date. The Department includes guidance on public entities’ use of social media platforms going forward in the section entitled “Public Entities’ Use of Social Media Platforms” in the section-by-section analysis of § 35.200.

Duties

Public organizations wishing to build, buy, or maintain noncompliant web, mobile, or digital content only have two gates under §35.204 Duties: Fundamental Alteration, Undue Financial and Administrative Burdens

§ 35.204 Duties – Where a public entity can demonstrate that compliance with the requirements of § 35.200 would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens, compliance with § 35.200 is required to the extent that it does not result in a fundamental alteration or undue financial and administrative burdens.

Before exploring Fundamental Alteration and Undue Financial and Administrative Burdens, it is important to note the common requirements of the overarching duties section.

The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or their designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity to the maximum extent possible.

While this seems a straightforward statement, there are some elements worth visiting:

• … after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity … – The broadest interpretation of this clause is that the head of a public entity or their designee must consider all resources within an organization and not limit the scope to budgets and resources allocated to the individual department(s) that may benefit from the technology or content.
• … accompanied by a written statement … – The head of a public entity or their designee must create a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The intent is to ensure that sufficiently empowered individual(s) can look at resources across the organization and make a conscious decision to accept the risk of securing noncompliant technology and content. It is also the author’s belief that this requirement sets up a psychological barrier as many people building, acquiring, and maintaining technology and content are incentivized to look for accessible alternatives rather than making a case for non-compliance to an agency head.
• …individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided… – As with every exception, the organization has an obligation to minimize the impact on people with disabilities. Many organizations will do this through processes that produce written action and responsibility plans, such as Equally Effective Alternative Action Plans or Corrective Action Plans. Title II is not prescriptive in how an organization achieves compliance but rather states an end result: individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity to the maximum extent possible.

Fundamental Alteration

A fundamental alteration under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) refers to a requested modification that would significantly change the essential nature of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities. While public entities must make reasonable modifications to ensure accessibility, they are not required to alter the fundamental nature of their offerings to accommodate individuals with disabilities.

From a technology acquisition or development perspective, fundamental alteration is focused on the intent. As an example, it may not be reasonable to make a digital photographic manipulation tool, such as Adobe Photoshop, accessible to people who are blind. In this limited case, it may fundamentally alter the nature of the application as the intent is visual design. While Title II is less descriptive in justification specifics, we can pull some beneficial ideas from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

508 Decision Questions:

1. Have you determined that conformance to the Standards would fundamentally alter some or all of the features and functions, such that the [ICT] [web, mobile, content] would not meet the agency’s business needs?
2. Has the responsible agency official documented in writing the basis for determining that conformance would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the [ICT] [web, mobile, content]?
3. Does your documentation address whether the exception is being claimed for the entire [ICT] [web, mobile, content], or only specific features and functions of the [ICT] [web, mobile, content]?
4. Will the agency provide an alternative means for users with disabilities for the features and functions for which you are claiming this exception?

Undue Financial and Administrative Burdens (Undue Burden)

An agency may build, acquire, or maintain noncompliant technology and content provided the requested modification would create significant difficulty or expense that is unreasonable given the entity’s overall resources. Once again, this is a challenging statement as the agency head or representative must consider all funding and resources available, not just the budgets and resources allocated to the department.

Once again, we can look to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to get an idea of the types of questions a public organization under Title II may ask.

508 Decision Questions:

1. Have you determined that conformance for some or all features and functions of the [ICT] [web, mobile, content] item would result in an undue burden on your agency or component?
2. Have you quantified the resources available to the program or component for which the [ICT] [web, mobile, content] is to be procured, developed, maintained, or used?
3. Has the responsible agency official documented in writing how the difficulty or expense is significant, relative to the resources available? For example:
   a. What % of the expense equals total [agency] budget available?
   b. Explain exactly what is significantly difficult, and why.
4. Does your documentation address whether the exception is being claimed for the entire [ICT] [web, mobile, content] item, or only specific features and functions?
5. [How] Will the agency provide an alternative means for users with disabilities for the features and functions for which you are claiming this exception?

Subsequent Duties Clarifications

And finally, we get some interesting insights into the Title II fundamental alteration and undue burden thought process by looking at some of the subsequently released materials:

Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps Provided by State and Local Government Entities: A Small Entity Compliance Guide

Under the ADA rules, your state or local government does not need to take actions that would result in a fundamental alteration or an undue burden. This is also true when applying the requirements of the rule. Determining what a fundamental alteration or undue burden is differs from entity to entity and sometimes from one year to the next.

State and Local Governments

What is an undue burden?
If a request or action would cause an undue burden, the state/local government must look for an alternative to ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the state/local government.

ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments

Public entities are required to give primary consideration to the type of auxiliary aid or service requested by the person with the disability. They must honor that choice, unless they can demonstrate that another equally effective means of communication is available or that the aid or service requested would fundamentally alter the nature of the program, service, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens. If the choice expressed by the person with a disability would result in an undue burden or a fundamental alteration, the public entity still has an obligation to provide another aid or service that provides effective communication, if possible. The decision that a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden or fundamental alteration must be made by a high level official, no lower than a Department head, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

Discontinue Use

Title II does not explicitly discuss discontinuing noncompliant technologies or content but establishes the compliant, exception, and duty gates. If a public entity does not wish to pursue one of the avenues, it is implicitly obligated to discontinue use.

As an experienced consultant with many years assisting public organizations in navigating accessibility compliance, I find it interesting how often discontinuing an existing product is the best solution, even when faced with no immediate alternative. Internally developed, poorly maintained applications expose organizations to various risks, including evolving security and accessibility risks and ever increasing accessibility expectations. While this may seem initially draconian, many organizations benefit from a forced technology refresh. Title II does not provide strong guidance on when an agency should retire noncompliant technology, but rather that it be planned for and taken through the evaluation and exceptions processes. As always, it is up to the public agency to establish policies, procedures, and take responsibility for the decisions made.

Conclusion

As of June 24, 2024, the Department of Justice issued final Title II rules for public entities that require the evaluation of website, web applications, web content, mobile applications, mobile content, and distributable content such as PDF and Word documents against a technical standard, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA, and effective communication. Agencies with a total population of 50,000 or more must achieve compliance by April 24, 2026. Agencies with a total population of less than 50,000 have until April 26, 2027.

Title II does not specify how public entities should acquire, build, or maintain technologies and content but expects them to consider each. This includes technology and content from product acquisitions, service contracts, internally developed applications and content, and any technologies or content maintained by the agency. In short, web, mobile, and content used to deliver services, programs, and activities are covered by Title II and must be evaluated.

Next, when making a determination, an agency may lean on one of three broad categories during the evaluation process: Compliant, Exception, Duties (See Table 3.)

Compliance means the items under consideration are accessible to people with disabilities, have secondary conformance measures that ensure use, or the defect is minor and will not affect people with disabilities.

Exceptions are means of onboarding or continuing the use of covered items with the provision that the agency minimizes the impact on people with disabilities. Next, duties cover the only two means an agency can acquire or continue using noncompliant technology or content: Fundamental Alteration and undue Financial and Administrative Burdens.

The two duty acquisition means have substantial requirements, such as evaluating all resources available to the agency, the agency head or designee providing a written justification, and the requirement to minimize the impact on people with disabilities. Finally, if a public agency does not wish to pursue one of the determination gates, it is implied that they are obligated to discontinue use even if a replacement solution is not immediately available.

Related Posts

VPAT: What Technology Vendors Need to Know

WCAG 2.2 Explained - What Designers and Content Creators Need To Know

What Lawyers Need to Know: A Primer on Digital Accessibility Terms and Today's Legal Landscape