Under the ADA Title II web rule, WCAG 2.1 AA conformance is required for websites and mobile apps. Under Title III (where we see serial website accessibility lawsuits against website owners), WCAG 2.1 AA (or 2.2) conformance is a best practice.
Thus, it’s very important to track every single instance of non-conformance and make those fixes. Accessibility Tracker does exactly this.
Importantly, Tracker is audit-based (whereas virtually every other platform and software is scan-based). Because Tracker is audit-based, we can now track all accessibility issues, not just those issues flagged by a scan.
Let’s take a look at how Tracker helps owner/operators of websites and mobile apps.
| Platform Capability | How It Supports ADA Compliance |
|---|---|
| Audit-Based Foundation | Track all WCAG issues from manual audits rather than incomplete scan results, meeting Title II requirements and Title III best practices |
| Issue Status Tracking | Monitor every instance of non-conformance with seven status labels from initial identification through validation |
| Team Assignment | Assign specific issues to developers, designers, and content editors for clear accountability in remediation |
| Progress Documentation | Generate monthly reports showing compliance progress for Title II deadlines or Title III legal defense |
| Prioritization Formulas | Sort issues by legal risk factors based on actual Title III litigation data or by user impact scoring |
Why Audit-Based Tracking Matters for ADA Compliance
The distinction between audit-based and scan-based platforms directly impacts your ability to track ADA compliance accurately. Manual accessibility audits evaluate all WCAG success criteria through screen reader testing, keyboard testing, and code inspection. This comprehensive evaluation identifies every instance of non-conformance that needs remediation.
Scan-based platforms only flag what automated tools can detect. These tools reliably identify approximately 13 percent of WCAG issues and partially detect another 45 percent. The remaining issues go completely undetected by scanning software.
For Title II entities, this gap creates a compliance problem. When the rule requires WCAG 2.1 AA conformance, tracking must account for all non-conformance instances. Working from scan results means missing 40 to 85 percent of the issues that prevent compliance.
For Title III entities facing serial litigation, the risk is similar. Plaintiffs cite WCAG requirements that scans cannot detect. Missing alternative text appears in complaints, but so do issues like inconsistent navigation, unclear error messages, and inadequate keyboard access patterns that automated tools miss entirely.
Organizations tracking compliance with incomplete data cannot measure their progress accurately toward meeting ADA requirements. When an audit report documents 150 accessibility issues but a scan only identifies 40, the tracking platform built on scan results provides false confidence about compliance status.
How the Platform Tracks WCAG Conformance
Accessibility Tracker works by extracting data from your audit report spreadsheet. Upload the audit file and the platform organizes all issues into a centralized dashboard where your team can monitor remediation work.
Each issue receives a status label showing current progress. Team members update these labels as work progresses from initial identification through final validation. The seven status options include not started, in progress, completed, validated, needs work, on hold, and discarded.
This workflow creates clear accountability. Assign color contrast issues to designers, keyboard navigation problems to developers, and alternative text requirements to content editors. Each team member filters the dashboard to view only their assigned work.
The platform maintains complete issue history. When an auditor validates a fix or requests additional work, that feedback appears in the comment log attached to the specific issue. No information gets lost in email threads or meeting notes.
Prioritizing Issues for ADA Compliance
The platform includes two formulas for sorting accessibility issues by priority. Organizations concerned with Title III litigation risk use the risk factor formula, which scores issues based on frequency in actual ADA website complaints filed in federal court.
This formula identifies which WCAG issues appear most often in legal claims. Missing alternative text for images, keyboard navigation problems, and form labeling issues consistently rank as high-risk concerns because plaintiffs cite these requirements frequently in complaints.
The user impact formula provides an alternative prioritization method. This scoring system evaluates which issues create the most significant access problems for people with disabilities. The formula weighs factors including whether the issue completely blocks access, whether workarounds exist, and how many users the problem affects.
Choose the formula that matches your compliance objectives. Legal teams often prefer risk-based prioritization while accessibility teams may emphasize user impact scoring. The platform allows switching between formulas to view issues from different perspectives.
Documentation for ADA Compliance
Title II entities need documentation showing progress toward the compliance deadline. Title III entities benefit from records proving commitment to accessibility if complaints arise. The platform generates both types of documentation automatically.
Monthly progress reports document how many issues were identified, how many have been fixed, and which remain outstanding. The reports include validation confirmations from auditors and show the timeline of remediation work.
This documentation serves multiple purposes. Legal counsel can reference the reports to demonstrate compliance efforts. Project managers use the reports to track team performance against deadlines. Executives review the reports to understand organizational accessibility status.
The platform maintains complete project history. Five years from now, you can demonstrate exactly when specific issues were addressed, who validated the fixes, and what your conformance status was at any point in time.
Managing Multiple Digital Properties
Organizations with several websites or mobile apps can track compliance across all properties from one dashboard. The platform handles multiple projects simultaneously, showing overall progress and individual project status.
View completion percentages across your entire digital portfolio. See which properties have the most outstanding issues. Identify patterns that appear across multiple projects, suggesting systemic problems requiring broader organizational attention.
This portfolio view helps allocate resources effectively. When one website needs 200 issues fixed and another needs 50, leadership can assign team capacity appropriately. When certain WCAG criteria appear frequently across projects, training initiatives can target those specific requirements.
The platform scales from single website compliance projects to enterprise-level accessibility management across dozens of digital properties. Each project maintains separate tracking while contributing to overall compliance visibility.
Tracker AI for Faster Remediation
The platform includes artificial intelligence tools that help teams fix issues more efficiently. When a developer encounters an unfamiliar accessibility requirement, Tracker AI provides explanations, code examples, and alternative approaches without leaving the dashboard.
These AI tools are pre-loaded with audit data for each specific issue. Instead of copying information into ChatGPT and crafting prompts, team members click analyze with AI and select from five specialized tools designed for accessibility remediation.
Faster issue resolution accelerates compliance timelines. Projects that might take 10 weeks can be completed in 4 weeks. This time savings matters for organizations facing Title II deadlines or preparing to defend against potential Title III claims.
The AI assistance also reduces reliance on expensive technical support. Questions that previously required consultant hours at $195 per hour get answered instantly through the platform. This cost reduction makes accessibility projects more financially feasible for organizations with limited budgets.
Integration with Existing Audit Services
The platform works with accessibility audits from any provider. Whether you work with Accessible.org or another audit service, upload the Excel spreadsheet and the platform extracts the data.
The platform does not replace auditing services. Professional auditors conduct the evaluation work using screen reader testing, keyboard testing, and expert analysis. The platform organizes and tracks the issues those audits identify.
This separation of concerns makes sense. Auditors focus on finding accessibility issues and recommending fixes. Your team focuses on implementing those fixes and tracking progress. The platform connects these activities without requiring auditors to learn new software or change their reporting format.
When auditors validate fixes, they can work directly in the platform or continue using their preferred workflow. The platform accommodates different validation approaches while maintaining centralized tracking.
FAQ
Does Accessibility Tracker replace accessibility audits?
No. The platform tracks issues identified through professional accessibility audits. Organizations still need manual evaluation by qualified auditors who conduct screen reader testing, keyboard testing, and comprehensive WCAG analysis. The platform organizes and tracks the issues those audits identify.
How does audit-based tracking differ from scan-based monitoring for ADA compliance?
Audit-based tracking works from complete WCAG evaluations that identify all accessibility issues. Scan-based monitoring only flags the limited subset of issues automated tools can detect. Since Title II requires WCAG conformance and Title III best practices reference WCAG standards, tracking must account for all issues, not just those scanners can find.
Can the platform help prioritize which ADA compliance issues to fix first?
Yes. The risk factor formula sorts issues based on Title III litigation data, showing which WCAG requirements appear most frequently in ADA website complaints. This helps organizations address high-risk issues first while working toward complete conformance.
What documentation does the platform provide for ADA compliance?
The platform generates monthly progress reports showing issue identification, remediation, and validation timelines. These reports document ongoing compliance efforts for Title II requirements or demonstrate accessibility commitment if Title III claims arise.
Does the platform work for both websites and mobile apps?
Yes. Upload accessibility audit reports for any digital property covered under ADA requirements. The platform tracks WCAG conformance for websites, mobile apps, web applications, and other digital assets. Organizations can manage compliance across multiple properties from one dashboard.
