ADA website compliance: what the rules say, what WCAG asks and how to fix a site

What ADA website compliance means and why WCAG is the yardstick

ADA website compliance means that people with disabilities can use your site as everyone else does. The Department of Justice says it has consistently taken the position since 1996 that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to web content. Its guidance on web accessibility covers two groups: state and local governments under Title II, and businesses open to the public under Title III, for goods and services offered online.

The same guidance says the department has no regulation setting detailed web standards, and that organisations have flexibility in how they comply. It names the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, WCAG, and the Section 508 Standards as helpful references. The page is informal technical assistance without binding legal effect, and it notes that it predates the April 2024 rule for governments. That is why WCAG became the working yardstick. Whether and how the law applies to your site is a question for a lawyer.

The April 2024 rule for governments and who it does not name

In April 2024 the Department of Justice published a final rule under Title II, and its fact sheet on ADA.gov calls WCAG 2.1 Level AA the technical standard for state and local governments’ web content and mobile apps. The rule was published in the Federal Register on 24 April 2024. The fact sheet also reports that an interim final rule in April 2026 moved the compliance dates: 26 April 2027 for governments serving 50,000 people or more, and 26 April 2028 for smaller ones and special districts.

The covered group includes agencies, departments, special districts, Amtrak and other commuter authorities, and contractors that provide public services for a government. The sheet lists five limited exceptions, such as archived content and content posted by third parties, and says the rule does not require actions that would cause a fundamental alteration or an undue burden.

The fact sheet does not state that the rule applies to private businesses in general. It reaches private parties in specific cases, for example a parking payment app that a city makes available but a private company runs. A shop or a clinic is under Title III, where the guidance above sets no detailed technical rule. What a court would expect there is exactly what you should ask a lawyer, not this article.

What WCAG 2.2 AA asks in plain words

W3C describes WCAG as an international standard for making web content more accessible to people with disabilities. Version 2.0 appeared in December 2008, 2.1 in June 2018 and 2.2 in October 2023. Each guideline has testable success criteria at levels A, AA and AAA, and content should be perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. W3C says content meeting 2.2 also meets 2.1 and 2.0, apart from one obsolete parsing criterion, and recommends using the latest version.

In everyday terms, the guidelines ask for text alternatives for images and other non-text content, and for captions and alternatives for video and audio. They ask that all functionality works from a keyboard. They ask for enough contrast: W3C’s explanation of the AA criterion sets 4.5 to 1 for normal text and 3 to 1 for large text, which means at least 18 point or 14 point bold. The Department of Justice adds form basics: labels, keyboard access and clear error messages.

WCAG 2.2 added nine success criteria. Several at level AA matter for ordinary sites: target size, where pointer targets should be at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels unless spacing or another exception applies; focus not obscured, so a sticky header does not entirely hide the control a keyboard user has reached; and dragging movements and a minimum standard for accessible authentication, which touches logins.

The failures found most often on real home pages

WebAIM, which is run by Utah State University, publishes an annual scan of the home pages of the top one million sites. Its 2026 report, with data from February 2026, found detectable WCAG 2 failures on 95.9 percent of pages, up from 94.8 percent the year before, and an average of 56.1 errors per page. Only failures that software can detect were counted, so the real number is higher.

The most common were low contrast text on 83.9 percent of pages, missing alternative text on images on 53.1 percent, missing form input labels on 51 percent, empty links on 46.3 percent and empty buttons on 30.6 percent. A missing document language was found on 13.5 percent. WebAIM also reports that pages using ARIA, a set of attributes for accessibility, averaged 59.1 errors, against 42 for pages without it.

Automated tools and manual testing: what each can and cannot see

Automated scanners are quick and cheap, and they catch real problems. W3C’s page on preliminary checks says an automated test can tell you that alternative text is missing, but not whether the text is appropriate for the image in its context. The Department of Justice makes the same point from the other side: a clean automated report does not guarantee that a site is accessible, so manual checks should be combined with tools.

The cheapest manual test is the keyboard. Unplug the mouse and use Tab, Shift and Tab, arrow keys, Enter and Space. W3C says you should be able to reach and operate every link, field, button and media control, focus should be visible and follow a logical order, and it should never get trapped. For a deeper check W3C recommends an experienced screen reader user and, for a full assessment, its WCAG-EM method.

Selling in Europe: the European Accessibility Act and France’s RGAA

If you sell to the European Union, a second set of rules exists. The Your Europe portal says accessibility requirements apply to products and services placed on the market after 28 June 2025, with online shops among its examples. It lists an exception for service businesses with fewer than 10 employees and under €2 million in turnover, and says any business may claim a disproportionate burden if it keeps evidence, reviewed every five years.

France publishes its own framework, the RGAA, from the interministerial digital directorate. Its technical method has 106 criteria, the current version is 4.1.2 and version 5 is planned for the end of 2026. Its legal page lists public bodies and companies with a turnover of 250 million euros or more, and names the European standard EN 301 549 or, for those choosing international standards, WCAG 2.1 levels A and AA. Whether any of this reaches you depends on facts a lawyer should check.

An accessibility statement and a plan to fix the problems

A statement tells visitors what to expect. The RGAA site spells out the content of its French version: a compliance status, a list of content that is not accessible with reasons, an accessible way to report a problem and a mention of the Défenseur des droits. The Department of Justice guidance, for its part, suggests giving the public a way to report accessibility problems. Whatever your country, publish an honest page: what you tested, what is known to fail and whom to contact.

A fix plan works best by template. Rank the issues by what blocks a task: checkout, forms and navigation first, then contrast and text alternatives, then the long tail. Fix the shared components, so one change repairs hundreds of pages, and retest by keyboard after every release. Accessibility is maintained, not finished.

Audit it yourself or order it: what to prepare

A first look is possible alone: run an automated scan, tab through your main pages, check forms and the checkout, and note every failure. The slower part is judging each issue against WCAG 2.2 AA, fixing it in the theme or code without breaking the design, and testing again. If no developer on your side can do that, an audit with a written list of fixes saves guesswork.

Prepare the list of key pages and flows, access to the CMS or code, the markets you sell in, and the name of the person who will publish the statement. A studio cannot answer the legal questions above, so decide who talks to a lawyer. This is not legal advice, and an audit report is not a certificate.

VITON13 Studio offers an accessibility audit against WCAG 2.2 AA, which covers ADA, EAA and RGAA use, and shows a free draft first: the five most serious issues on your home page. The audit costs $73 and takes 3 to 5 working days. Accessibility fixes start from $213 and take 7 to 15 working days, and monitoring costs $13 a month.