Ready or not: Closing the gap on ADA Title II requirements

Welcome and Today’s Agenda

Sapir: Welcome everyone. Thank you so much for joining us today. We’re very excited to have you here for today’s session about ADA Title II. And we’ll just get started in a moment as more people are trickling in. So we’re very excited for this session today, which is about closing the gap on ADA Title II requirements. And as you’re sharing where you’re joining in from, we also are excited to share that we had many registrants joining from across the U.S. Some were from public sector institutions, some were from web agencies, some were from universities, and some were from healthcare.

We even had a librarian register for this webinar. So this topic around ADA Title II touches a lot of you, and you might already be aware of the regulation, but it’s really about getting started and how we can be prepared for the deadline, which is coming up on April 24, 2026. So, the purpose of today’s conversation is really to be informative and conversational. We encourage you to share your questions in the chat as we go along. We also have a few polling questions, so be sure to stay engaged and interactive. And we’ll get started.

So, to introduce myself briefly, my name is Sapir Yarden. I’m part of accessiBe’s marketing department. I’ve been with the organization for four and a half years. And I’m really excited for the conversation today because it’s really about bringing some of our experts to share their knowledge with you, both from the policy side and from their lived experience.

So, we’re going to get started on today’s agenda, and for our conversation, we’re covering the ADA Title II deadlines, who it applies to, when it applies to them, what some of the technical aspects of the regulation are, and where these risks really concentrate so that you can be prepared for them in advance. And then one of the more important aspects of today’s conversation is really going to be focusing on building a defensible program.

What that means is you’re probably aware, as I mentioned before, about ADA Title II, but how do you actually prepare for ADA Title II?

Of course, we’ll leave questions for the end, but feel free to share your questions throughout the webinar as we continue to move ahead. And with that, I’m excited to introduce both Josh Basile and Chandra Smith today for our panel, who are bringing their lived experience and work to today’s conversation. So, Josh, I’ll hand it over to you to introduce yourself first.

Meet the Speakers

Josh: Thank you, Sapir, and welcome, everyone. I’m Josh Basile. I’m the community relations manager here at accessiBe, and I’ve been here now for over 5 years. And I’m coming into the conversation today through a few important lenses that shape accessibility for me personally. When I was a teenager, I was in waist-high water in the ocean, and the wave picked me up and threw me over my boogie board. That day, I landed on my head and shattered my neck. So I come here today as a person with a disability.

And then when I returned home, I went to undergrad, then I went to law school, and I’ve been a practicing trial attorney and disability rights attorney since 2013. And I also bring a great deal of experience speaking with organizations along their accessibility journeys and helping them move from good intentions to real operational practices. I love guiding businesses, wherever you’re at within your business journey, to bring accessibility to the forefront. I will now throw it over to Chandra.

Chandra: Hello, everyone. I’m Chandra Smith, and I currently serve as a Section 508 officer working within the federal government at the Defense Intelligence Agency. I’ve been an IT engineer for about 13 years, and most of that has been for the federal government in the federal IT community and across several government organizations. I am primarily responsible for IT data governance. I wrote the 508 policy for the Defense Intelligence Agency. I’m also responsible for the OMB report that goes to Congress that measures the maturity of the 508 program. I am an individual with a disability as well.

In 2021, a medical incident resulted in me becoming a triple amputee and wheelchair user after I also experienced a stroke. I also use assistive technology to do my daily job. I’m also a disability advocate, and I won at the state level to become Miss Wheelchair Maryland 2023, as well as at the national level to become Miss Wheelchair America 2024, and my platform centered around universal design, both in the virtual realm and in the physical realm.

So, I bring the expertise of compliance as well as my day-to-day lived experience dealing with assistive technology and interacting with some of these systems we’ll be talking about today.

Section 508 and ADA Title II

Sapir: Thank you so much, both of you, and I’m so thrilled to have you both on this conversation to share both your lived experience and your knowledge of policy and the technical implementation.

Before we move forward, could you share a little bit about the difference between Section 508 and the ADA regulation?

What is one key difference our attendees should know?.

Chandra: Section 508 focuses on the federal sector, while ADA Title II applies to the public sector and local government. The mission is the same; the distinction depends on where you work.

Research Behind the Discussion

Sapir: Cool. That really helps, and I think it grounds it a little more as we get closer to who ADA Title II really applies to. So, as we’re bringing these insights to you, we also wanted to share that we have research going live on accessiBe’s website today with all of the information that we’ll be sharing in the webinar as it relates to higher education, government, and vendors. And the research comes to you from our partnership with Qualtrics, where we surveyed over 300 public sector leaders. And the data that you’ll see today comes from that conversation and from those insights.

So with that in mind, I’ll turn it back over to you, Josh.

The Human Impact of Inaccessible Systems

Josh: Thank you, Sapir.

So when we talk about inaccessible systems, what does that actually mean in real life?

So, according to the CDC, 28% of U.S. adults have a disability, and 21% of undergraduates live with a disability. Title II isn’t really about code alone. It’s about whether required systems allow people to participate independently. When registration portals are inaccessible, tax payment sites don’t work with assistive technology, or students can’t access required course platforms. That is more than a technical issue. It’s a blocker. It’s a barrier. It stops someone from being able to move forward.

But before we look at the code, it’s important to look at the person behind the screen because accessibility isn’t about whether someone can show up, participate, and complete what they need to do with dignity and independence. For me, being paralyzed, I use a lot of different assistive technologies depending on where I am during the day. So, if I’m at my computer, I use a quad stick. I use an onscreen keyboard. I use voice dictation software when I’m in bed. I use a special mouth retainer system that helps me control my computer.

And I also use voice dictation as well to jump through and operate my own on-screen keyboard. So, wherever you’re at with a physical disability or whatever unique ability you have, a lot of people have different assistive technologies to be able to control their environment. And that’s key for me to be independent and access the world around me. But I’ll throw it over to Chandra to add some of her insights as well.

Chandra: Josh, thank you for that framing. It’s so important when we talk about inaccessible systems. It’s easy to get caught up in the technical specifications, and those absolutely matter, but it’s the real human impact. And when you can’t access any system, that’s not just a minor inconvenience. It’s a barrier to participation. And before we look at the code, we have to really look at the human aspect of it and what that really means in society.

If you are trying to pay a bill at 9:00 p.m., you actually want to be able to pay that bill, especially if it’s a deadline coming up. So those things actually matter. And when we can’t access those systems for individuals who have disabilities, it takes their independence away because they have to ask others to help them or simply not pay that bill, which can be very bad in some cases.

Who ADA Title II Applies To

Josh: It can be life-changing if you can’t pay that bill. Access is key to independence. We want the internet to be accessible and usable for everyone. We’ll jump to the next slide. So this one’s a very important slide to really understand at the core. It’s important to clarify who the Title II rule applies to. So Title II governs state and local government entities and the digital services that they provide to the public. That includes agencies, municipalities, public utilities, transit authorities, public universities, public colleges, and K-12 school districts.

But there’s another group that’s increasingly part of the conversation, and that’s vendors, because many of the systems used by public institutions today—learning platforms, payment systems, document tools, mobile apps, and service portals — are provided by private companies. While the legal obligations sit with the public entity, those institutions are under growing pressure to make sure that the tools that they procure are accessible as well.

So, Chandra, I wanted to ask, from your perspective, working inside government environments, how much accessibility risk actually enters through the procurement and vendor systems?

Chandra: Most agencies and universities rely on dozens, sometimes hundreds, of third-party platforms to deliver services. So even though Title II applies directly to the public entity, accessibility often depends on the accessibility of those vendor systems. For example, I am responsible for submitting the OMB report and collecting data across different entities for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the GSA tool used for that process was not accessible. I use voice control and voice input because I do not have the dexterity to actually type. So a lot of what I do is voice-controlled.

So I actually had to meet the deadline. I had to ask a colleague to submit it for me. But if it were accessible a couple of years ago, I could have submitted the data myself.

Josh: So, just again going back to that independence piece, it’s such an important part of the conversation to have within this, and thank you, Chandra, for that. We’ll jump to the next slide.

Compliance Deadlines

Josh: So now that we understand who this applies to, let’s talk about the timeline institutions are working against. The Department of Justice created a phased compliance timeline to make it more doable for public entities to hit these important milestones. The population thresholds you see here are based on the U.S. Census data that we have around the country. So for public entities serving populations larger than 50,000, the deadline is actually April 24, 2026, which is fast approaching. And smaller public entities have an additional year till April 26, 2027. But regardless of size, the expectation is the same.

Digital services must meet the accessibility standards referenced in the rule. And I want to emphasize something really important here. The deadline does not mean that everything has to be perfect overnight. What regulators are likely to look for is whether there is a clear, documented process for identifying barriers and addressing them. And that’s where the idea of a defensible accessibility program becomes important.

A Defensible Accessibility Framework

Josh: So, we want to give you a preview of where this conversation is headed today. Throughout today’s discussion, we’re going to keep returning to four key steps that help institutions move toward a defensible position. Audit, prioritize, verify, and document. Those four steps may sound simple, but in practice they require real coordination across systems, teams, vendors, and workflows. And you have to keep at it, and eventually you get really good at it. But that’s where it’s at. And I’m going to throw it over to Chandra.

Chandra: Now, from an operational standpoint, the biggest challenge isn’t usually awareness of the deadline. It’s coordinating accessibility across these areas with many different systems, teams, and vendors. And these steps don’t happen in isolation because accessibility touches many different teams. So building your accessibility strategy really means bringing structure to that complexity. It’s about making accessibility something that’s managed intentionally rather than reactively.

Where Organizations Stand Today

Josh: I love that. Next, we want to step back and look at the current reality of where institutions are today, where the biggest gaps are, and where accessibility risks tend to concentrate. And to start that conversation, we’d love to hear from you.

Audience Poll: Audit Readiness

Sapir: Thanks, Josh.

So, we have our first poll for today’s conversation, and I will get that started right now. You’ll see it appearing on your screen in just a moment. So, you should see a poll on your screen.

On a scale of 1 to five, with one being the lowest and five being the highest, how audit-ready do you feel?

This goes back to our conversation: we expect readiness to vary based on attendees’ roles, backgrounds, and organizations. But let’s see what the results say, and we’ll give it just a few more seconds. More than 70% of the audience has participated so far.

Josh, what are you thinking about the results at this point?

Josh: I just want people to answer honestly. So, I’m very curious where everybody comes from.

Sapir: Well, here we go. Share results. Thank you. We have a pretty interesting distribution here. So, with one meaning not ready at all and five meaning fully ready, no one selected five. Nearly 60% of you selected ‘We’ve started working on it,’ and we have a few more who are here to see what else they can do. So with that, I’ll stop sharing the poll, and I’m excited to share the results we have.

Josh, do you want to read these off?

What the Research Shows

Josh: Absolutely. Again, if you didn’t click five, and nobody did, you’re definitely in good company. In our research of 300 public sector leaders, 47% said they were not fully confident they had the resources needed to meet the Title II requirements, and only 14% believe that their accessibility efforts are actually defensible. The point here is not to create more pressure on you, but it’s to show you that your organization feels like it’s still in the building structure, still dividing the scope, or still trying to get its arms around the work. You’re not alone. This is a journey.

You just have to be proactive, and you have to take one proactive step at a time to get towards the goal. That is where many institutions are right now. And when we looked deeper into the data, one issue stood out very clearly. 41% reported fragmented ownership, and that isn’t really about a lack of effort. In many cases, teams are really working hard, but accessibility is happening across departments instead of through one coordinated framework.

So, Chandra, what stands out to you about that result?

Chandra: The challenge is that accessibility is often happening in pieces across multiple teams and systems. Accessibility usually isn’t owned by a single team. It touches IT, procurement, communication, academic departments, and sometimes even legal or compliance. So even when teams are doing good work individually, it can be difficult to bring all of that together into one coordinated strategy. That makes it harder to maintain consistency, and it becomes difficult to document progress in a way that demonstrates accountability.

Josh: I totally agree with you on that point.

That brings us to a key question: where does accessibility risk actually concentrate?

Accessibility Hot Zones

Sapir: I think this is where I’ll jump in and share a little bit about what we have defined as hot zones in quotations. This is a way for you to think about prioritizing the work, but also to understand if the accessibility responsibility is being fragmented across an organization.

Where does it touch you and your work, and how can you start to prioritize the accessibility of different systems under your purview?

So we have three different zones that we’ve categorized as hot zones: the red zone, which is critical systems; the orange zone, which is high-intensity systems; and the yellow zone, which is moderate. And if we’re thinking about critical areas for government or higher education, which are the public sector leaders that responded to our survey, voting and election portals are essential.

Health and human services applications are also essential, and then tax and utility payment sites, which Chandra mentioned earlier, want to pay those bills and have the independence to stay in your home, pay your bills, and have that economic freedom. When it comes to the higher education space, it’s also about course registration, accessing course materials, and financial aid. So those are the critical systems that need to be accessible, and I would say those are the highest priority.

Then we have the orange zone, where things like your day-to-day activities- transit schedules, emergency alerts, court e-filing systems- and, in the higher education space again, that’s course materials, whether that’s syllabi documentation, and actually those are often created by faculty, and there’s a big question about whether faculty-created documentation needs to be accessible. The answer is yes. Then we have the yellow zone, which is moderate, and these are systems that exist primarily for informational purposes, and individuals are not relying on them in order to complete specific tasks for their independence.

So that might be a department homepage, historical archives, campus information, social events, and that is the background to starting to prioritize and understand what’s important for your accessibility strategy.

Audience Poll: Highest-Priority Systems

Sapir: So we have another poll ready for you here, and this is to ask you about which hot zone is your highest priority right now. I will start that in just a moment. Okay, you should see it on your screen.

Which hot zone is a top priority for you?

Is it legacy PDFs, third-party platforms, mobile apps, or websites?

And I have the luxury, apparently, of seeing the results in real time. This is really interesting and fun for me to get a sneak peek. We have about 70% of people participating. I’ll give it a few more seconds before we end the poll and share the results with all of you. Okay. And 3 2 1, end poll and share results. So, the results we have are a pretty interesting breakdown.

Only one of you has said that mobile apps are a priority. 65% of respondents said websites are a priority, which we’re glad you’re here because we are a web accessibility company and we do talk about a lot of digital priorities, but websites are definitely something that we’re familiar with and the challenges there. 23% of you have selected legacy PDFs, and 11% of you have selected third-party platforms. So, let’s see what the results have been from our research. Josh, I’ll hand it back to you.

Scope Gaps Across Public Institutions

Josh: Absolutely. Thank you, Sapir. So, looking at these results, it’s clear that most teams are juggling multiple services at once. And this really aligns with the research we saw across the 300 public institutions. Only 59% currently include their primary website in a formal accessibility scope. Mobile is even more revealing. And despite how heavily people rely on mobile workflows, only 46% of institutions included mobile applications in their scope, while 87% included online documentation, with many prioritizing PDF remediation. So if your current scope feels incomplete or uneven, that doesn’t mean you’re behind.

It means you are actually aligned with where many other institutions are today. What usually emerges is that there isn’t one universal starting point. Some teams are wrestling with years of archived PDFs. Others are realizing that their biggest risk actually lives inside vendor platforms, and mobile is increasingly becoming a major bottleneck.

Mobile Accessibility Is Essential

Josh: All right. Independent research also revealed that 72% of mobile user journeys contain significant accessibility barriers. And that matters because for many people, mobile isn’t secondary. It’s a primary way for them to access information, complete forms, communicate, register, pay, and participate. So from a lived experience standpoint, when someone fails on mobile, the experience often fails in real time because you have to meet your users where they are. It can mean that you can’t finish the task at hand when you need to. Mobile accessibility is not a nice-to-have for many users. It is essential access.

And I know for myself, it’s a horrible feeling to have to wait till a friend, a family member, or a caregiver comes into the room with me to help me tackle something on my phone or on my computer. Not everybody has the luxury of having those people in their lives. So, Chandra, I’d love for you to add your perspective on this as well.

Chandra: So, like most people, my phone is a lifeline. My whole life is on my phone. And when I’m trying to reach a website that I have to use voice control to navigate or a screen reader, and if that mobile site wasn’t built with accessibility in mind, I simply can’t navigate it. And I’ll give you an actual example. I was trying to use a government agency mobile app to complete a task. Something that should have taken me maybe 2 minutes. The app had a button at the bottom of the screen.

But when I tried to navigate to use voice control, the button wasn’t even being recognized. It just seemed like I couldn’t access it. It was completely invisible to my assistive technology. I tapped where the button should have been. Nothing happened. I tried again. Nothing. I even had to put down my phone, open my laptop, and complete the task from a desktop browser instead.

Now, when you really think about what that means for someone who relies exclusively on their phone, someone who doesn’t have a laptop, someone who is in the middle of their day and just needs to do something really quickly, that inaccessible button isn’t just a minor inconvenience. It’s a full stop. And that’s what the 72% statistic represents. 72% of mobile user journeys contain significant accessibility barriers. That’s not a data point. That’s millions of people hitting a wall every single day when they’re trying to use their phones to access services they’re entitled to. And mobile accessibility isn’t optional anymore.

People like me live on their phones. And if your mobile experience isn’t accessible, you’re not just creating a bad user experience; you’re excluding people from participating. And under Title II, that exclusion now, unfortunately, has legal consequences.

Testing Mobile Web Experiences

Sapir: Thanks for sharing that, Josh and Chandra. And having known both of you for quite some time, I’m familiar with these challenges that you speak about, but then when you put them into that context, it’s super helpful. I want to bring it back, actually, to the poll that we just conducted because there’s a discrepancy between what we saw in real time in this conversation versus the data that we have from our research with public sector leaders, which is that the people who are here today are interested in website accessibility.

When we’re talking about the accessibility of a mobile journey, we’re not necessarily talking about mobile apps; we’re also talking about the mobile view of a website.

So, when you’re testing your website to make sure that it’s accessible, are you doing it on both your desktop and your mobile?

The code elements of that website, the remediations that you’re doing, and the auditing on those resources are just as important. And that also goes to platforms that we’re using on our phones. I’ve had an experience today, Chandra, where I’m not using assistive technology, but I tried doing something from a website on my phone, and it didn’t work, and I had to go to my computer, and I was just annoyed by it because it takes another 10 to 15 minutes to go through that whole process.

So for someone who does rely on assistive technology or might even need to rely on another friend or caregiver, family member to complete a task, especially if it’s related to a service that you should be getting from the public sector, it can be not just a frustrating moment, but a full stop, as you said. I think this will be interesting for the next question that we have. So, Chandra, I’ll let you lead this one.

Myth: Alternative Access Is Enough

Chandra: All right. Now we want to look at the misconceptions we see quite often in accessibility programs.

True or false?

Providing a phone number or email as an alternative to an inaccessible website is compliant under the new Title II rule.

Audience Poll: Alternative Access

Sapir: So you should now see this on your screen. We’ll repeat the question. Providing a phone number or email as an alternative to an inaccessible website is compliant under the new Title II rule. And I’ll wait again for just over 75% participation, and we’ll get started. Okay, I’ll do my countdown. Three, two, one. Here are the results. 95% of you have said this is false. 5% of you have said this is true.

And Chandra, what is the outcome?

Chandra: The answer is false. Many organizations have historically relied on what we call alternative access. Federal guidelines clarified that public entities cannot rely on a reactive, upon-request model for essential digital services. Required digital content must be accessible by default, not only after someone encounters a barrier. Historically, alternative access was accepted in certain contexts, but the new rule shifts that expectation. Accessibility must be built into required workflows, not layered on after the fact.

So why do so many of us think it’s okay?

It’s because we’re empathetic. We use phone lines as a safety net because we know our systems are complex and our resources are thin, but a phone number isn’t a substitute for the independence a student or resident has when a system just works for them.

Sapir: Thanks, Chandra. I also think this is what happened in the private sector, which has led to a big wave of web accessibility compliance issues, where some big corporations offered phone numbers instead of making their websites accessible, and the courts made clear that that’s not a proper alternative. It needs to be on the website, or the website needs to be accessible.

Chandra: Yes. And I remember briefly there was a lawsuit from Domino’s Pizza because the person couldn’t order something as simple as a pizza and see the results from that. And imagine how much worse that is when it’s not just a pizza, but it’s actually a government service that you’re trying to get access to.

Sapir: So, Josh, what are your thoughts here?

From Reactive Accommodation to Proactive Accessibility

Josh: I think both you and Chandra have provided some important distinctions there. Those are important distinctions. But when someone relies on a system or assistive technology, independence matters. If a system works, you could complete the task privately and immediately, just like anyone else. But if the system doesn’t work and you have to call someone for help, that independence really does disappear. So that is why we are seeing this shift from reactive accommodation to proactive accessibility, where accessibility is considered earlier in procurement, design, development, and governance.

The challenge, of course, is that many accessibility programs did not start that way, and they grew reactively over time. That shift can be difficult, especially when an organization is already managing legacy systems, vendor platforms, decentralized teams, and limited resources. But you have to start where you’re at and build from there. And as long as you’re being proactive and doing something, for me personally, I’m so grateful that you’re deciding to have that type of journey.

It’s just I don’t think any business wakes up and says, what, I want to exclude people with disabilities from being a part of our website or our journey. They simply don’t know what they don’t know, and they sometimes don’t know where to start. But then, if you can start, that’s where the magic happens.

Why Accessibility Programs Get Stuck

Josh: So why does accessibility readiness feel so stuck?

For many organizations, it isn’t one problem. It’s several layers of friction happening at the same time. 41% of institutions report fragmented ownership, one in three lacks fully documented accessibility decisions, and 31% report budget constraints that limit their ability to enforce accessibility requirements and contracts. So that is exactly why this conversation matters.

Chandra, from your perspective, inside public institutions, how do you see organizations navigating accessibility enforcement when vendors and procurement are involved?

Procurement and Vendor Responsibility

Chandra: So, while the legal responsibility ultimately sits with the public entity, accessibility often depends on what gets built into vendor contracts and procurement processes. And if accessibility isn’t clearly defined or verified at that stage, institutions often inherit accessibility issues later.

Accessible Forms and PDFs

Sapir: Yeah, it’s actually interesting. We have a question here from Christa LeBron.

Do order forms need to be accessible?

For example, we have a document that people need to fill out when requesting documents from us. The form is required by the company, and the person requesting it must include their contact information and possibly credit card information. I’m assuming this refers to a public entity doing a procurement process where they have an order form, and that order form might be on the website, or it might be in PDF format. Since it is something being actively used, it needs to be accessible.

Chandra, is that correct?

Chandra: Yes. And the rule of thumb PDFs can be difficult because it’s hard to get the accessibility from the ground up. So anything that you can do in HTML, do it in HTML. That way, it can be a live document, and you can make the changes.

Sapir: But yes, so that actually gets to another question that we were already asked: we were told, in quotes, that archival documents like legacy PDFs are not included under Title II. So I like the point that you made about when you have a chance to make a PDF in HTML, it’s better because that lives on the website. You can make it more easily accessible than a PDF, which is not necessarily accessible. Most PDFs are inaccessible, just as most websites are.

If you have old information in a PDF and you have to go back and recreate that PDF each time, but each time you’re doing it in an inaccessible way, that’s not going to help anyone. But if you have it as HTML on your website and it’s a living page, that helps. If it’s an archival document, meaning it’s a PDF that no one’s using, it’s probably best that you remove it from the website altogether.

Is that also a correct assumption?

Chandra: Yes. Yes, that is a correct assumption.

Sapir: So, from my understanding and from the research that we have on our own website, archival documents don’t necessarily need to be accessible if they’re not something that’s being used. But in that case, you’re better off removing them from public access in general.

Avoiding Remediation Debt

Josh: And jumping back, thank you, Sapir, for answering that question that came through. Returning to this slide, fragmented ownership, the documentation gap, and the procurement trap lead to a phrase we use a lot: buying remediation debt. Accessibility challenges do not always originate inside your organization. Sometimes they are inherited through procurement, and we see this all the time. An organization procures a new system, accessibility is treated as a secondary issue, and later the institution ends up carrying the cost, the complexity, and the risk for fixing that platform that it did not build.

So that is why procurement becomes one of the most important leveraging points in a defensible accessibility strategy. So when accessibility is not built into the selection and verification, you often inherit legal and operational risk the moment that contract is signed.

Audience Poll: Vendor Accessibility

Sapir: Oh, we have another poll here for everyone. So I’m going to launch this poll now. Let me get started on that.

When evaluating a vendor, do you consider their accessibility compliance?

And we’ll give it a few more seconds for all of you to respond. Okay. And I’m going to end this poll in three, two, one.

Verifying Vendor Claims

Sapir

Good job to everyone who got their answers in. We have these answers pretty spread out. So, the majority of you have said that it’s discussed in conversations, which we’ll get to in a moment. I think that’s a very interesting point. But then 28% of you have said yes, we ask for documentation. And 32% have said it hasn’t come up yet. What we’re going to see more and more in the procurement space is the question of accessibility coming up.

And what we see with accessibility is sort of similar to what we’ve seen with privacy in the past, where SSL certificates, privacy documentation, and SOC compliance are coming more into conversations around vendors and procurement. So we’ll be seeing that as well. I’ll take this slide. So, 62% of institutions, which is the majority, say they consider accessibility and vendor selection. So again, this doesn’t necessarily define whether it comes up in conversation or if there’s proper documentation, but only 38% of respondents said that they actually verify if the claims are true.

So it’s an interesting point because the majority are having conversations about accessibility; the remaining question is whether they are testing accessibility and confirming that the system is actually usable. I’m thinking, for example, about a student who has to use a learning management system or is trying, or an employee of your organization who’s going through some sort of educational training where that system is not accessible to them, but you have documentation that says it is accessible. So you don’t want to be left in that loophole.

It’s always good to have that additional verification, that user testing, and that conversation around accessibility so that you don’t have any gaps in your documentation and defensibility strategy. So this is where I hand it back to you and Chandra, Josh, to discuss what a defensible position looks like.

What a Defensible Position Looks Like

Josh: Okay, we’ve been talking about this all day during our presentation. So we use the phrase defensible position many times.

Chandra, what does this actually mean in practice?

Audit Your Scope

Chandra: So the first step is simple. It’s understanding what systems fall within your accessibility scope. For many institutions, this is harder than it sounds. Accessibility may apply to your website, your mobile apps, learning platforms, payment portals, benefit systems, and sometimes dozens of digital services. Once you understand the landscape, the next step is deciding where to focus first.

Prioritize, Verify, and Document

Josh: Thank you, Chandra. Yeah, in the context of Title II, a defensible position doesn’t mean everything has to be perfect. I know we said that earlier. What it does mean is that, if someone asks how your organization is managing accessibility, you can clearly show which barriers you’ve identified, which fixes you’re prioritizing, how you’re evaluating vendors, and how you’re tracking the progress over time. So at accessiBe, we see four key elements that help create that structure. First, audit your scope. Second, prioritize the areas creating the greatest impact. Third, verify accessibility claims, especially from vendors.

And fourth, document the work that’s being done. And that is what turns accessibility from that reactive scramble into a doable program for almost any organization.

Prioritize Essential Systems

Sapir: So Josh, when we’re talking about prioritizing, we’re going back to those hot zones that we shared, which you, Chandra, had talked about auditing, but then once you have audited, you can tell, and it’s also based on the users that you have and the systems that they’re using, what is going to be the highest priority. So, an archived PDF or a PDF that no one really opens probably isn’t going to be at the same level of priority as a system that requires people to pay their bills or to have access to regular public sector or public information on a regular basis.

That prioritization system can help you understand what is in the immediate foreseeable future of making something accessible, and what is something that you can work towards as part of your plan over time.

Josh: And then it’s key to have that prioritization because that’s where the real impact is on your customer and the people that need to benefit from what you have to offer, but also to gain access to what they need in their everyday life.

Chandra: And for my organization, the Defense Intelligence Agency, because it is part of the intelligence community, there are many exemptions. So what we primarily focus on is our essential business systems. Systems that the majority of users will interact with, such as time cards, any of your HR systems, and things that people do daily. So you want to think about what your business does and focus on those essential systems.

Handling Inaccessible Vendor PDFs

Sapir: And interestingly, Chandra, we have a comment from Wendy Crow, who shares, “We receive PDFs from vendors that are not accessible, but we’re required to have them on our website. How do we handle that?”

Chandra: Vendors often provide a lot of the VPAT statements and so forth, but it goes back to verifying and not just trusting.

So, could you repeat the question?

Sapir: You said the question was that the organization is receiving PDFs from vendors that are not accessible.

Chandra: So, to your point of verifying, yes, and that’s what you also want to use people with disabilities as part of your verification. So can a user who’s using a screen reader navigate these different applications, whatever they may be? So you definitely want to verify, and you don’t want to assume that just because they say that it is accessible. You have to actually verify that it is accessible.

Sapir: At the end of the day, the public entity is ultimately responsible for ADA Title II compliance. So the vendor needs to be accessible according to your requirements, and those requirements are to be compliant with the law. Yes.

And so, Josh, do you want to take the last one?

Document Your Progress

Josh: Absolutely. This is right in my wheelhouse as a lawyer. Documenting is super important to have a track record of what happened, and documentation is what turns accessibility work into a defensible program because you’re able to show your work. That means keeping records of audits, remediation work, testing results, vendor evaluations, accessibility decisions, prioritization choices, timelines, and progress. If the work is happening but it isn’t documented, it’s hard to be defensible around it to show that you’ve been doing the work that needs to be done. It becomes that much harder to argue and demonstrate accountability, consistency, and due diligence.

As much as you can, please document, and it will allow you to really tackle this in the best way possible.

Operationalizing Accessibility

Josh: So throughout today’s conversation, we talked about what it takes to build a defensible accessibility program. Understanding your scope, prioritizing the systems that matter most, verifying accessibility claims, and documenting your progress. That is the framework right there. And the question then becomes, how do organizations operationalize that in a way that is actually sustainable and doable?

How accessiBe Supports the Journey

Josh: So at accessiBe, we support organizations at different stages of that journey, depending on what structure they need. Through AI automation, organizations can address high-volume accessibility work at scale across larger web environments. Through developer tools, development teams can monitor and remediate code in one place, which helps create the ongoing visibility and oversight a defensible strategy requires. And through expert services, organizations can get support through things like PDF remediation, VPATs, manual testing, and user testing, all of which can help demonstrate due diligence, especially in the procurement and compliance setting.

So ultimately, the goal is the same one we’ve been talking about throughout this entire session today: helping organizations build an accessibility program that is structured, measurable, and defensible over time. That’s what we’re here to help with and be a part of your journey.

Audience Q&A

Sapir: So, with that, it is the end of our presentation, but we still welcome your questions. I have a few questions for Chandra and Josh if you’re okay to answer. Just one or two.

Chandra, the question we discussed before this webinar that is still a little unclear: how will ADA Title II actually be enforced?

What lessons have you learned from Section 508 that can give us a little bit of insight into how ADA Title II will be enforced?

How ADA Title II May Be Enforced

Chandra: Most enforcement will likely be complaint-driven, where individuals report barriers to the DOJ or pursue legal action. The key thing regulators look for is whether an organization has a structured accessibility program and documented progress. The enforcement piece is something the federal agencies I work with struggle with because there are so many different components, and while we work as advisors, we cannot compel a specific DIA element to fix an application. We have a process for complaints, but complaints are usually where the process begins.

We get a complaint, and then we have to fix it on the back end, where it becomes much more costly than building accessibility in from the beginning. So if it’s accessible from the beginning, that’s when you avoid the legal ramifications and so forth.

Legacy Systems and the Deadline

Sapir: That is super helpful. But it also gets into this other point. Josh, I’ll ask you this question: so many public institutions, especially in government, healthcare, and universities, are using legacy systems.

What happens if they aren’t accessible on April 24, 2026?

Josh: Well, as long as they’ve been following a defensible framework where they’re continuously trying to fix the problems, address the problems, documenting it, and following the steps, they’re going to be able to have the ability to continue to try to bring it to those accessible standards. But if the system is fundamentally broken and isn’t realistically fixable, if it doesn’t have those good bones, then you might have to start all over, which might be scary for some, but you have to assess where you’re at and what type of legacy systems you’re working with.

Printable PDFs and Staying Current

Sapir: Absolutely. We have a question from Sheila in the chat.

What about printable PDFs on a website?

So, this actually goes back to the conversation we were just having. If it’s a document that people are regularly using, it does need to be accessible. If you’re using a PDF that’s on a website, you want people to have access to it. What they are printing it for also matters. So, that’s part of the audit process. We have a couple more questions in the chat.

How can we ensure that we’re fully up to date?

Josh: I think the best way is to build a relationship with an accessibility company that you trust, that can be a part of your journey to help answer those questions. Because the biggest thing about an accessibility journey is that you don’t know what you don’t know. So, as long as you don’t have to do it alone and you have someone trusted who is an expert at navigating it, which I’m proud to say is accessiBe- they’re incredible at what they do and what we do.

So, building that team around you really can help make sure you do it right at all stages and figure out where you’re at within your journey.

Chandra: Yes. Then you want to also maintain records of accessibility audits, remediation plans, vendor evaluations, and test results. The more you can document, the better you can show that you’re making meaningful progress. The point is just to start.

Closing Remarks

Sapir: Exactly the point I wanted to make. And I think it also goes back to accessiBe being a platform company. We’re not just one single solution. We do have solutions depending on where you’re at in your accessibility journey. So if that’s an AI-powered solution to handle a large volume of smaller tasks at scale, or developer tools to help you code accessibility into that website.

Finally, it may mean having those VPATs if you’re a vendor that’s trying to work with the public sector or user testing, which I think is one of the best things that you can do for your own website because it is another level of verification that you can ensure for your website. We’re coming up on time. So, I want to say thank you so much to both Josh and Chandra for sharing your insights, knowledge, and time with us. This was a very robust but also very helpful conversation.

I’ve shared in the chat the link to schedule a meeting with an accessiBe representative to answer additional questions for anyone whose question we weren’t able to answer today. But we look forward to connecting with you again soon. Have a good one, everybody.