Accessibility Compliance After the Deadline: Ongoing Obligations for Universities
Accessibility needs continuing attention as course material and platforms change. Plan ongoing checks, review responsibilities and responses to reported barriers.
Accessibility work continues as materials, platforms and student tasks change. A compliance date does not turn a changing course library into a permanently completed project.
For covered US public entities, the current DOJ Title II web and mobile dates are April 26, 2027 for populations of 50,000 or more and April 26, 2028 for smaller entities and special district governments. Student enrolment does not determine the cohort. See DOJ guidance for applicability, exceptions and continuing obligations.
Australian education providers have distinct DDA 1992 and DSE 2005 duties without a matching federal US-style deadline. Plan against your institution's actual requirements.
Build accessibility into new material
Use structured templates, semantic headings, appropriate image descriptions and a review process for exported files and captions. Provide training and a clear route for difficult content to reach the accessibility team.
Check third-party materials and new platform features as part of procurement and rollout. A previously tested course can develop barriers when its content or interaction changes; there is no universal percentage or fixed date at which that happens.
Maintain detection and response
- Schedule applicable automated and manual checks, with a defined scope and owner.
- Provide a usable channel for students and staff to report barriers.
- Track findings through review, correction and acceptance of the actual output.
- Escalate unresolved issues and coordinate appropriate interim access with disability services.
- Recheck changed material and record the version and review decisions.
An automated score summarizes particular checks. It does not represent a department's overall legal compliance or the experience of every student.
Keep evidence useful
Retain the content inventory, software configuration, findings, saved outputs, manual review decisions and remaining work. Report failures and unavailable outputs alongside successes. A rising count of processed files does not necessarily mean that the accessibility backlog has been resolved.
Evaluate automation as part of the process
Aelira Core is beta and supports scanning and eligible partial remediation. Connector availability, permissions and verification maturity vary. Connection, content retrieval, scanning, review and authorized writeback are separate operations; continuous monitoring must be evaluated for the actual deployment.
Some documents require manual work or cannot produce a downloadable remediated file. Confirm the version, supported format and saved-output behavior before planning an ongoing service around it.
Use a representative institutional pilot to measure review time, remaining barriers and operational reliability. Publish outcome claims only with the method, limits and permission to disclose the findings.

RD (Reg) Crampton
•Founder & CEOFounder, CEO & lead developer of Aelira. Building beta tools to help faculty and accessibility teams check materials and evaluate suggested fixes, with human review required.
Related Articles
What Procurement Should Demand in an Accessibility AI Contract: A Due-Diligence Checklist
Eleven proposed due-diligence terms for AI-assisted accessibility procurement. Adapt acceptance, evidence, data-flow and exit commitments to institutional needs.
FERPA, Cloud Inference, and the Data-Sovereignty Question Procurement Should Be Asking
Map document and inference data flows, review FERPA conditions and contract terms, and verify what a self-hosted deployment actually sends outside the institution.
What Accessibility Scores Establish — and Why Review Records Matter
Use scanner scores within their measured scope, and retain review records tied to exact files. Neither a score nor an audit trail guarantees conformance or an investigation outcome.