91少女集中营

The DOJ issued a final rule in 2024 establishing specific accessibility requirements for web content and mobile applications provided by state and local governments, including public colleges and universities. The rule generally requires covered web content and mobile applications to conform to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA. DOJ extended the compliance deadline for covered public entities with populations of 50,000 or more to April 26, 2027.

The ADA has required accessibility for public entities for many years. What is new is the adoption of a specific technical standard and compliance date for covered web content and mobile applications.

No. The rule is nationwide and applies to all covered public entities regardless of whether they have received a complaint. 

No. The rule generally applies to covered web content and mobile apps provided or made available by the University, regardless of when the content was created.  There is no 鈥済randfathering鈥� of old material. The rule does, however, contain several specific exceptions, including exceptions for certain archived content, certain preexisting electronic documents, certain third-party content, individualized password-protected documents, and preexisting social-media posts. 

No. The requirements apply more broadly to University web content and mobile applications. This may include University websites, forms, online services, course materials, and content provided through University-supported platforms. 

WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the technical accessibility standard incorporated into the DOJ's Title II regulation. It establishes specific requirements for making web content and mobile applications accessible to people with disabilities.

Legally, the standard itself is conformance to WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Although accessibility work is often a continuing process, the legal standard is not simply a good faith effort or sliding scale.  

Compliance may be evaluated by the University, accessibility professionals, DOJ, OCR, courts, and others if an accessibility concern or complaint arises. 

Examples include identifying accessibility barriers, prioritizing remediation, training employees, procuring accessible technologies, maintaining accessibility processes, and promptly responding to reported barriers.  These efforts are important and help demonstrate diligence on the part of the University, but good faith efforts do not eliminate the University鈥檚 underlying accessibility obligations. 

The regulation does not impose an automatic fine simply because the deadline is missed. However, noncompliance can result in complaints, investigations, enforcement actions, litigation, and other remedies available under the ADA.

Legal liability under Title II sits with the institution as the public entity, not with individual faculty members personally. Faculty should nevertheless follow University accessibility requirements because inaccessible course materials can create institutional compliance issues and barriers to students with disabilities.

Yes, but it is narrow and requires a high-level documented determination. The University may demonstrate that compliance in a particular circumstance would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens.

However, a determination must be made at the appropriate institutional level and does not eliminate the University's obligation to provide access to the maximum extent possible. Faculty should not make an individual 鈥渦ndue burden鈥� determination.

The legal standard applies to the University regardless of an employee鈥檚 position; content provided by the University must be accessible. Practically, faculty typically create instructional content, while staff often create webpages, forms, communications, and administrative content.  Both may generate covered digital content. 

If students or graduate assistants create or post content on behalf of the University, the University remains responsible for ensuring that covered content is accessible.

If the site is truly personal and not operated as a part of a University program, service, or activity, Title II may not apply.  If the site is used for official university functions, instruction, research programs, or student interaction, accessibility obligations are much more likely to apply. A lab or research site that represents official, university-affiliated work is likely within Title II鈥檚 scope even if it sits on a non-university server or personal domain.  

Official University social media content is generally part of the institution鈥檚 communications and should be made accessible.  There is a specific, narrow exception for preexisting social media posts: posts made before the applicable compliance date of April 26, 2027, do not need to be brought into WCAG 2.1AA compliance. New posts made after the compliance date do need to conform.  Content posted independently by third parties (member of public commenting on department鈥檚 post) is generally excepted unless it was posted pursuant to a contractual, licensing, or other formal arrangement with the University.

All actively used content needs to be digitally accessible. This includes syllabi, word documents, PowerPoint presentations, PDFs, digital textbooks, videos and audio, online assignments and assessments, course websites, and other digital content. 

The federal rule contains an exception for certain preexisting conventional electronic documents that were available before the University鈥檚 compliance date. That exception has important limitations and does not apply to every older document or course material. For example, a past course shell that a student can still access, enroll in, or that is otherwise 鈥渃urrently used鈥� to participate in an institutional program does not qualify for the exception.  The exception is meant for material that is truly inactive and must be labeled as such. 

Yes. All course materials, including textbooks, should meet accessibility standards. If the University provides or requires a digital textbook as part of a course, the University generally cannot avoid its accessibility obligations simply because the material was created or supplied by a publisher. Faculty should use accessible materials whenever possible. However, publishers are increasingly aware of these requirements and are working to make materials Title II compliant. 

Yes. A syllabus is course content provided to students and should be accessible. 

Yes. Digital documents provided as part of University programs or activities should be created in a manner that allows individuals using assistive technology to access the information.

Yes. Scanned PDFs often create accessibility barriers because the text may not be readable by a screen reader. Such PDFs will likely require remediation (optical character recognition, tagged, with reading order, and alt text). 

Yes. Accessibility requirements apply regardless of subject matter.  Equations, diagrams, and scientific notation may require specialized remediation but are not exempt. 

Yes. There is no exemption in the Title II rules for AI-based tools.  If an AI tool (content-generation, grading, or a chatbox) is used as part of a program or service, it is subject to the same WCAG 2.1AA obligation as any other web-based or app-based tool.  Liability for non-conformance remains with the University, not the vendor. 

Yes. Interactive polling, quiz, and engagement tools used as part of instruction are web/app content subject to the same WCAG standard as any other course technology; there is no lower standard for supplementary or 鈥渇un鈥� classroom tools.  

Generally, yes. The DOJ rule applies to covered web content and mobile applications provided or made available by a public entity directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements. A University generally cannot transfer its Title II obligations to a vendor simply by contracting with that vendor.

Generally, yes. Videos provided as part of instruction should include accurate captions. 

Yes. Age alone does not exempt a video.  If the videos remain available as a part of current instruction or university services, accessibility obligations still apply. 

Only if it is accurate enough to provide meaningful access.  Automatically generated captions frequently require review and correction to provide meaningful access to the content.

Generally, yes.  Individuals who cannot hear the recording must have an accessible alternative, typically a transcript. 

The fact that a video was created by a third party does not automatically eliminate the University鈥檚 accessibility obligations if the University requires or provides the video as part of a course or program.  Faculty should use accessible videos whenever possible. Alternatives or accommodations may be necessary if accessibility barriers exist. 

No. Accessibility does not mean that every student must have captions displayed.  When captions are required, closed captions can generally be turned on or off by the viewer. For example, in a Spanish-language listening exercise, faculty may instruct students: 鈥淔or this exercise, please watch the video with captions turned off.  After completing the questions, you may turn captions on to review the dialogue.鈥�  The important distinction is that captions remain available to student who need or choose to use them. 

Generally, yes. 

The University retains its institutional obligations under Title II. Those obligations are not transferred to students simply because students create and upload the content as part of a course assignment. Faculty may, however, make accessibility requirements鈥攊ncluding captioning鈥攑art of an assignment or grading rubric when appropriate to the course and learning objectives. For example, a faculty member could require:

鈥淵our video must include accurate closed captions in Spanish.鈥�

That makes captioning an academic requirement of the assignment, rather than telling students that they are legally responsible for the University's Title II compliance. If a student cannot satisfy an accessibility-related assignment requirement because of a disability, the University should address the issue through its established accessibility/accommodation processes.

Not necessarily. Student-created video submitted privately to an instructor solely for evaluation is different than a video the University publishes or makes available to other students as course content. Accessibility rules are primarily concerned with ensuring that people who need access to content can access it. Captions become much more important when a student-created video is: 

• shared with classmates for peer review; 
• posted as course content; 
• used by future students; 
• presented publicly; 
• viewed by a student, instructor, or other participant who needs captions as an accommodation. 

The key principle is meaningful access, not simply whether a student happened to create the content.

A VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) is a standardized template developed that vendors commonly use to prepare an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR). An ACR describes how a product or service aligns or does not align with accessibility standards.  It is evidence, not a guarantee, of accessibility.  

Federal law does not universally require a VPAT before procurement.  However, many institutions require one through policy and procurement processes.  USM Procurement requires language in our contracts that hold vendors accountable to meeting the accessibility standards to the fullest extent possible.  Currently, iTech is working to obtain VPATs for all known digital products. 

No, the VPAT is documentation, not itself the legal standard. The actual legal requirement is that the tool as deployed meet WCAG 2.1 AA. If a vendor cannot provide a VPAT, the University must independently evaluate the tool鈥檚 accessibility before adoption and if gaps exist, have a plan for providing accessible alternatives to students/employees who need one.  The University is working on policies to address this issue.