ADA Title II Update

Each webpage within a TAMU-CC website should contain an Accessibility link in its footer. That link includes the complaint process. It also includes contacts across the university depending on the services needed.

If there is a specific concern about a website, website patrons are provided contact information for Marketing and Communications.

If there is a question about digital accessibility, information technology patrons are provided contact information for the Digital Accessibility Officer.

Each webpage within a TAMU-CC website should contain an Accessibility link in its footer.

On the primary university website, that "Accessibility" link includes the complaint process. It goes to the same reporting system as the Risk, Fraud and Misconduct Hotline. These requests receive prompt action and are considered high priority.

Third parties providing university services or websites should also include a means for providing feedback. Some have their own web form. Some have an email address. We recommend they use the main Accessibility link, especially if they are hosting a website on our behalf. If a community member does not feel comfortable using the other options, they can use the main link to the complaint process.

The TAMU-CC IT Accessibility website includes several free resources for creating accessible digital content and acquiring accessible technology.

Introductory information is included in a section called People with Disabilities: a Perspective. It shows how people with disabilities use technology, including assistive technology.

If anyone needs assistance, they can contact the Digital Accessibility Officer.

* For WCAG 2.0, 2.1, EN 301 549, and Revised 508 Standards, the September 2023 errata update indicates this criterion is always supported. See the WCAG 2.0 Editorial Errata and the WCAG 2.1 Editorial Errata.

Archived web content must meet all four (4) conditions:

1. Was created before the date the public entity is required to comply with this rule, reproduces paper documents created before the date the public entity is required to comply with this rule, or reproduces the contents of other physical media created before the date the public entity is required to comply with this rule;
2. Is retained exclusively for reference, research, or recordkeeping;
3. Is not altered or updated after the date of archiving; and
4. Is organized and stored in a dedicated area or areas clearly identified as being archived.

Note: Clear identification is important because the person with the disability must be able to predict (a) minimum technical standards we must meet and (2) where those standards apply.

Recommendation: You are advised to remove old or outdated content as soon as possible to prevent confusion. This reduces the web content required to meet these technical standards. It also improves search engine results, so people find what they need quickly.

Preexisting conventional electronic documents do not have to meet minimum technical standards unless they are currently being used for university business. As stated in the new rule:

unless such documents are currently used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in the public entity’s services, programs, or activities

Conventional electronic documents are web content or content in mobile apps that is in the following electronic file formats:

• portable document formats ("PDF"),
• word processor file formats,
• presentation file formats, and
• spreadsheet file formats.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Consider other document types that would be included in these categories, like ePub.

Recommendation: You are encouraged to place content on websites instead of electronic documents. Electronic documents are harder to maintain. You must check them for broken links and outdated information. Additionally, they require more effort to make accessible, even though some applications like Microsoft 365 have accessibility checkers.

Content posted by a third party does not have to meet minimum technical standards unless they are working on behalf of the university. As stated in the new rule:

unless the third party is posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the public entity

If the third party is providing IT on behalf of the university (not independent or unaffiliated with the university), then the IT must comply with WCAG 2.1 AA.

This includes ensuring contracts and other agreements include a commitment to conforming with WCAG 2.1 AA. Continued compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA is required. Therefore, some service providers must guarantee our ability to scan and score accessibility conformance (e.g., Siteimprove, Anthology Ally).

They must provide us a means to request ADA accommodations where applicable (e.g., email address, web form, support website). They must remediate issues promptly or provide transparency on the status of remediation. This includes working with us and the person with the disability to address appropriate alternative solutions.

As mentioned before, conventional electronic documents must meet minimum technical standards if they are for university business. However, specific people may not have disabilities. As stated in the new rule, this exception applies if they are

about a specific individual, their property, or their account and that are password-protected or otherwise secured

The exception does not include mass communications. For example, an invoice going to a specific person provided in a secure area falls under the exception. But the flyer everyone receives that is attached to the invoice must comply with WCAG 2.1 AA.

If a qualified person with a disability requests an ADA accommodation for that invoice, then we must ensure it complies with WCAG 2.1 AA relevant to the needs of that person. If we know they will receive future invoices, we must make that invoice comply each time without forcing that person to make the same ADA accommodation request.

One of the goals of the new rule is to reduce the need for people with disabilities to identify their disabilities. WCAG 2.1 AA provides common accessibility issues we can address, so they are less likely to be forced to identify their disabilities. They retain their independence and privacy.

Note: Invoices and other individualized documents can also be remediated by using an accessible template. While they are a lower priority in the new rule, we can determine if effort needs to be made sooner based on the number ADA accommodation requests we receive or must process.

Definition: Websites or mobile apps of third parties whose primary purpose is to enable users to create and share content in order to participate in social networking (i.e., the creation and maintenance of personal and business relationships online through websites and mobile apps like Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn).

While the social media platform is not required to be accessible, any posts to the platform must comply with WCAG 2.1 AA within the limitations of the platform.

For example, Instagram is image and video intensive. While there is an option to add alternative text to images, it may not convey the full message. The text that goes with the post can include the image or video description underneath the main message of the post (see NASA's Instagram account for example posts).

Where making the IT comply with WCAG 2.1 AA would fundamentally alter the service, program or activity, we have the burden of proving it would be a fundamental alteration.

Some academic examples of a fundamental alteration:

• Lowering the grading standard.
• Removing a required learning objective.
• Removing a learning objective that is related to ensuring wellbeing or security.
• Removing requirements connected to an accreditation, license, or certification.

Note: Even when filing an ADA exception, we would still need to address alternative accommodations. These would ensure people with disabilities still receive the benefits or services provided by the university to the maximum extent possible, per the new rule.

Where making the IT comply with WCAG 2.1 AA would create undue financial and administrative burdens, we have the burden of proving it would be a financial or administrative burden. These are fact-intensive reviews under the new rule.

Financial burdens are hard to prove and involve assessing the organization's budget and strategic goals, not just the current budget within a department of the organization. As a federally funded institution, we have a fiscal responsibility to our community. This includes strategic use of funds. It also includes reviewing potential grant money or other options where applicable.

Administrative burdens cannot include a lack of knowledge of the technical accessibility standards. For example, in two years, every web maintainer is expected to understand WCAG 2.1 AA enough to create or remediate their content to those standards. The new rule states this should not be difficult to accomplish since the WCAG 2.1 standards were published in 2018. There are training resources available to meet this standard.

However, administrative burdens can include an overwhelming lack of resources. In many respects, our current marketplace has a lack of resources to make IT comply with WCAG 2.1 AA. It is our duty to inform our service providers of this new minimum standard, so they will be prepared in two years. Even then, some innovative technology may be harder to bring into conformance. The new rule otherwise indicates the informed service providers will make the progress needed given the consequences will be removal of their products and services.

Note: Even when filing an ADA exception, we would still need to address alternative accommodations. These would ensure people with disabilities still receive the benefits or services provided by the university to the maximum extent possible, per the new rule.

Minimal impact to access must be tested on non-conforming IT. This is a fact-intensive process that includes four (4) tests:

1. Access the same information as individuals without disabilities
2. Engage in the same interactions as individuals without disabilities
3. Conduct the same transactions as individuals without disabilities
4. Otherwise participate in or benefit from the same services, programs, and activities as individuals without disabilities.

We must test these against timeliness, privacy, independence, and ease of use for people with disabilities.

Some examples where minimal impact to access may be satisfied:

• Access to information:
  • If the color ratio for some sections of text is 4.45:1 instead of 4.5:1 as required by WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.3.
  • If the spacing between words is only 0.15 times the font size instead of 0.16 times as required by WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.12.
• Engage in the same interactions:
  • If the time limit for an interaction, such as a chat response, expires at exactly 20 hours, even though WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 2.2.1, which generally requires certain safeguards to prevent time limits from expiring, has an exception that only applies if the time limit is longer than 20 hours.
• Conduct the same transactions:
  • If web content does not conform to WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 4.1.1 about parsing, yet people with disabilities can submit a form or process their payment.

Note: These are slight deviations. The last example shows a success criterion that appears to no longer be a concern given technological advances. Complete non-conformance to a success criterion cannot satisfy minimal impact to access.

Recommendation: Encourage service providers to come to compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA in two years. Perfection is not expected, but progress is a goal service providers should have. These minimal impacts must be documented. Service providers are expected to make improvements to remove them.

We may use conforming alternate versions of web content. However, the new rule states this should occur only in the rare instances where web content cannot be made accessible due to technical (e.g., future technology) or legal (e.g., copyright) limitations.

For example, a lack of knowledge of the technical accessibility standards does not constitute a technical limitation. In two years, every web maintainer is expected to understand WCAG 2.1 AA enough to create or remediate their content to those standards. The new rule states this should not be difficult to accomplish since the WCAG 2.1 standards were published in 2018. There are training resources available to meet this standard.

Recommendation: Alternate versions of any web content should be used rarely. Universal design through WCAG 2.1 AA is preferred. There is too much of a risk that an alternate version becomes outdated or provides segregated access to information or an activity. These conforming alternate versions must be maintained concurrently with the inaccessible version.