What must be remediated now — and what may qualify for exception 

This tool helps you decide what needs remediation now under Title II — and what may qualify for a documented exception. It does not replace legal review or guidance.

Is the content student-facing?

Can students (or prospective students) access this content as part of instruction, enrollment, or required services?

Examples generally outside scope:

  • Internal administrative systems used only by staff
  • Faculty-only tools not accessed by students
  • Internal research or planning systems

Why this matters:

Title II applies to programs, services, and activities provided to the public, which in higher education includes students and applicants — not internal operations.

Is the content required for instruction or services?

Does this content allow the public to:

  • Access government programs or services?
  • Submit applications, forms, or payments?
  • Participate in hearings, meetings, or public comment?
  • Access required public notices or records?

Examples that usually qualify as “in scope”:

  • Benefits or assistance applications
  • Licensing and permit forms
  • Public safety alerts
  • Public meeting agendas and minutes
  • Election or voter information

Is it current and actively used?

Is this content part of:

  • An active government program or service?
  • An ongoing public initiative?
  • A current compliance or reporting requirement?

Indicators content is “current”:

  • Referenced by an active webpage
  • Used in ongoing processes
  • Required for applications, eligibility, or participation

Is the content truly archived?

Is it:

  • Kept only for records retention?
  • Not used in current programs or services?
  • Separated from active materials?

Important clarification:

“Old” does not automatically mean “archived.”
If the public still relies on it, it is not exempt.

Is there an accessible alternative available?

Can the public access the same information or complete the same requirement in an accessible way?

Examples of acceptable alternatives:

  • Accessible web pages instead of scanned PDFs
  • Staff assistance provided in a timely, documented way
  • Updated forms that fully replace older versions

Would remediation be an undue burden right now?

Would fixing this require significant difficulty or expense relative to agency resources?

Key clarification:

Undue burden depends on the situation and your available resources. It is not a permanent exception or a blanket reason to avoid remediation.

Is the decision documented?

Have you documented:

  • What the content is
  • Why remediation is difficult now
  • What alternatives are provided
  • When it will be revisited

DOJ expectations focus heavily on whether agencies can show reasoned decision-making, not perfection.

Remediation likely required

This content appears to fall within ADA Title II requirements and should be prioritized before April 2026.

The good news: you don’t have to navigate this alone.

accessiBe supports government organizations with scalable, defensible accessibility solutions.

May qualify for exception

This content may not require immediate remediation. However, Title II still applies to active public-facing digital services.

The good news: you don’t have to guess where you stand.

Run a scan to see how your website performs against accessibility standards.