Higher Education Accessibility Buyer's Guide 2026
How to choose the right accessibility tool for your university before the April 2026 WCAG 2.2 deadline
1. Executive Summary
TL;DR: What You Need to Know
- April 24, 2026: Universities must comply with WCAG 2.2 Level AA for all course content
- 5 months remaining: Manual remediation is mathematically impossible at scale
- 4 main solution types: Scanning tools, format converters, website overlays, and remediation platforms
- Budget range: $490/year (website overlays) to $50K/year (enterprise LMS solutions)
- Critical gap: LaTeX/MathML support is missing from most tools (95% of math courses use LaTeX)
This guide helps IT directors, instructional designers, and university administrators choose the right accessibility tool for their institution. We'll cover evaluation criteria, budget planning, implementation timelines, and common pitfalls—all with a focus on the April 2026 deadline that's rapidly approaching.
2. Understanding the April 2026 Deadline
⏰ Timeline: Why This Matters Now
April 24, 2026: Final compliance deadline for ADA Title II (28 CFR §35.200)
Today: ~5 months remaining (as of November 2025)
What's required: All course content (PDFs, PowerPoints, videos, HTML) must meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA
What Changed?
The Department of Justice finalized regulations under Title II of the ADA requiring state and local governments (including public universities) to ensure their web content and mobile apps are accessible. The rule adopts WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard, with universities required to meet WCAG 2.2by the April 2026 deadline.
What's In Scope?
- Course materials: PDFs, PowerPoints, Word documents, LaTeX equations
- Multimedia: Video lectures (captions + transcripts), audio recordings
- Learning Management Systems: Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle, D2L
- University websites: Public-facing pages, department sites, portals
- Third-party tools: Educational apps and platforms used by students
Consequences of Non-Compliance
- Legal liability: ADA lawsuits, OCR complaints, Department of Justice investigations
- Financial penalties: Fines up to $75,000 for first violation, $150,000 for subsequent violations
- Reputational damage: Public scrutiny, negative press coverage
- Loss of federal funding: Risk to Title IV funding, research grants
3. Types of Accessibility Solutions
Not all "accessibility tools" solve the same problem. Understanding the four main categories is critical to making the right choice for your institution.
1. Scanning Tools (Identification Only)
What they do: Scan content and identify accessibility violations. Generate reports with issue lists.
What they DON'T do: Fix problems. You still need to manually remediate every issue.
Examples: YuJa Panorama, axe DevTools, WAVE, Lighthouse
2. Format Converters (Alternative Formats)
What they do: Convert inaccessible files to alternative formats (PDF HTML, ePub, audio).
What they DON'T do: Fix the source content. If your PDF has missing alt text, the HTML version will too.
Examples: Blackboard Ally, Kurzweil 3000
3. Website Overlays (Widget-Based)
What they do: Add a JavaScript widget to websites that adjusts contrast, font size, and navigation.
What they DON'T do: Work on course content (PDFs, videos). Only work on live web pages.
Examples: accessiBe, UserWay, AudioEye
4. Remediation Platforms (AI-Powered Fixes)
What they do: Scan content AND generate working code fixes. Automate 90% of remediation work.
What sets them apart: AI-generated alt text, LaTeX MathML conversion, bulk processing.
Examples: Aelira (only solution with LaTeX support)
4. Key Evaluation Criteria
When evaluating accessibility tools, assess them across these 10 critical dimensions:
1. Remediation Capability (Not Just Scanning)
Question: Does it fix problems or just identify them?
- Red flag: "Generates reports" = you do all the work
- Good sign: "AI-generated working code fixes" = automation
2. LaTeX/MathML Support (Critical for STEM)
Question: Can it handle math equations?
- Reality: 95-99% of mathematicians use LaTeX
- Red flag: "Use Microsoft Equation Editor instead" = unacceptable to faculty
- Good sign: "Automated LaTeX MathML conversion"
3. Bulk Processing (Scale Matters)
Question: Can it process 1,000+ files at once?
- Reality: Medium departments have 50-200 courses with thousands of files
- Red flag: One-at-a-time processing = won't meet deadline
- Good sign: CLI tools, directory scanning, batch processing
4. LMS Integration
Question: Does it work with your LMS (Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle)?
- Must-have: LTI 1.3 integration (access files directly in LMS)
- Acceptable: Manual upload/download workflow
- Red flag: LMS-specific (only works with one platform)
5. Privacy & Data Security
Question: Where does your data go?
- Red flag: "Powered by OpenAI" = your course content goes to third parties
- Acceptable: Cloud-based with SOC 2 certification
- Best: Self-hosted AI (data never leaves your infrastructure)
6. Pricing Transparency
Question: Do you know the total cost upfront?
- Red flag: "Enterprise pricing" = months-long sales process
- Acceptable: Per-user pricing (predictable but expensive)
- Best: Per-department flat rate (unlimited users)
7. Implementation Timeline
Question: How long until you're up and running?
- ⏰ Reality: You have 5 months until April 2026
- Red flag: 3-6 month implementation = won't meet deadline
- Good sign: Same-day access, self-service onboarding
8. Faculty Training Requirements
Question: How much faculty time is required?
- Reality: Faculty have no time for 40-hour training programs
- Red flag: Requires faculty to learn new coding skills
- Good sign: IT-managed, faculty clicks "approve" on fixes
9. Support & Documentation
Question: What happens when you need help?
- Must-have: Email support, documentation, video tutorials
- Good sign: Dedicated Slack channel, quarterly training webinars
- Best: Dedicated account manager (enterprise only)
10. Compliance Reporting
Question: Can you prove compliance to OCR/DOJ?
- Must-have: Department-wide dashboard showing progress
- Good sign: Exportable PDF reports for legal/audit purposes
- Best: WCAG 2.2 attestation letters, VPAT documentation
5. Tool Comparison Matrix
| Criteria | YuJa Panorama | Blackboard Ally | accessiBe | Aelira |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remediation (not just scanning) | ||||
| LaTeX/MathML support | ||||
| Bulk processing (1,000+ files) | ||||
| LMS integration | Q1 2026 | |||
| Privacy (self-hosted AI) | ||||
| Pricing transparency | Enterprise | Bundled | $490-990/yr | $999/mo |
| Implementation time | 2-4 weeks | 4-8 weeks | Same day | Same day |
| Faculty training required | Moderate | Moderate | None | Minimal |
| Best for | LMS scanning | Alt formats | Websites | Course content |
Note: This comparison focuses on course content remediation for the April 2026 deadline. For detailed tool-by-tool comparisons, see our vs. pages.
6. Budget Planning
Accessibility compliance is an investment, not an expense. Here's how to think about budgeting:
3 Cost Categories to Consider
1. Software/Tool Licensing
Range: $490/year (website overlay) to $50K/year (enterprise LMS)
2. Implementation & Training
Range: $0 (self-service) to $10K (professional services)
3. Ongoing Staff Time
Range: 5-20 hours/month for review, approvals, and quality checks
ROI Framework: Compare vs. Manual Remediation
Manual Remediation Cost (50-course department):
2,150-3,100 hours × $75/hr = $161K-$233K
Aelira Cost (6 months):
$999/mo × 6 months = $5,994
Savings: $155K-$227K (2,500%-3,800% ROI)
Typical Budgets by Department Size
Small (10-20 courses)
Budget: $1K-$2K/month
Options: Aelira Education tier, manual review for high-touch content
Medium (20-100 courses)
Budget: $1K-$3K/month
Options: Aelira + dedicated training, quarterly webinars
Large (100+ courses)
Budget: $3K-$10K/month
Options: Enterprise site license, dedicated account manager, custom SLAs
Get the Full Buyer's Guide (PDF)
This page covers sections 1-6. Enter your email to receive the complete 12-section guide, including implementation timelines, pitfalls to avoid, RFP checklists, and decision frameworks.
Join 500+ universities preparing for the April 2026 WCAG 2.2 deadline.