Exceptions
.
Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), there are five types of IT (Information Technology) that are considered exceptions to the usual accessibility requirements.
These exceptions mean that some IT may not need to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level A and AA standards right away.
However, if someone with a disability asks for help accessing one of these types of IT, we must respond quickly and make the necessary updates so the content works for them. This means making updates to the content meet that apply to their specific needs, if they are a reasonable accommodations request.
Example — Reasonable accommodations: A person who is blind finds an old webpage with images they need to understand. They ask for alternative text to be added so their screen reader can describe the images. This is a reasonable request and is covered by WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.1.1 – Non-text Content. We update the page with alt text and share the accessible version with the person.
Some older web content may qualify as archived, which means it does not have to meet accessibility standards right away. But for content to be considered "archived web content", it must meet all four (4) of the following conditions:
- Was created before April 24, 2026, reproduces paper documents created before April 24, 2026, or reproduces the contents of other physical media created before April 24, 2026;
- Is retained exclusively for reference, research, or record keeping;
- Is not altered or updated after the date of archiving; and
- Is organized and stored in a dedicated area or areas clearly identified as being archived.
Recommendation — Remove outdated content: If you no longer need old or outdated content, it is a good idea to remove it. This helps reduce the amount of content that needs to meet accessibility standards and makes it easier for users to find current, useful information, especially through search engines.
Important: Do not remove content that must be kept for legal or records retention purposes. Always check your records retention policies before deleting anything.
Recommendation — Clearly mark archived content: If you need to keep older content, make sure it is clearly labeled as archived. Store it in a folder named "archive". Make sure any links to that content say it is for archival or reference use only. This helps users, especially those with disabilities, understand what to expect and where accessibility standards apply.
Some electronic documents created in the past do not have to meet accessibility standards, unless they are currently being used for university business. According to the ADA Title II rule, accessibility is required only if the documents are:
"…used to apply for, gain access to, or participate in the public entity's services, programs, or activities."
Example — Active university business: Let us say you created a PDF document before April 24, 2026. The document contains instructions for applying to a Summer 2025 scholarship. Even though the document was created before the cutoff date, it is still being used on or after April 24, 2026 to help students apply for a university program. Because it is part of active university business, it does not qualify for the exception and must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards.
What counts as a conventional electronic document?
These are documents found on websites or in mobile apps that use common file formats, such as:
- portable document formats ("PDF"),
- word processor file formats (Word),
- presentation file formats (PowerPoint), and
- spreadsheet file formats (Excel).
This list is not exhaustive. Other formats, like ePub, may also fall under this category.
Recommendation — Reduce reliance on documents: Whenever possible, put content directly on web pages instead of using electronic documents. Web content is easier to keep up-to-date and more accessible to everyone. Electronic documents can be harder to maintain—they may contain broken links, outdated information, and often require extra work to make accessible. Even though tools like Microsoft 365 offer accessibility checkers, web content is still the better choice for long-term usability and compliance.
Content posted by a third party does not have to meet accessibility standards, unless they are working on behalf of the university. According to the ADA Title II rule, accessibility is required only if the third party is posting content:
"…due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the public entity."
What does this mean?
If a third party is independent and not connected to the university through a contract or agreement, their content is not required to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards.
However, if the third party is providing IT on behalf of the university (e.g., through a contract, license, or partnership) then their content must comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
Example — Independent activity: A professional organization hosts a webinar and shares the recording on their own website. They mention the university in the description because a faculty member participated as a guest speaker. However, the university did not sponsor, request, or contract the organization to create or post the content. Since the organization is acting independently and not on behalf of the university, the content does not need to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards under ADA Title II.
Recommendation — Include accessibility standards in contracts: Make sure all contracts and agreements with third parties include a clear commitment to follow WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards. This ensures that any content or technology they provide on behalf of the university is accessible to everyone.
Recommendation — Allow accessibility scanning: Some service providers must allow us to scan and monitor their content for accessibility. This helps us ensure ongoing compliance. Tools like Siteimprove or Anthology Ally can be used to check and score accessibility performance. Make sure contracts and agreements with these providers do not penalize the university for using compliance scanning solutions on the content (e.g., page views or hits).
Recommendation — Provide feedback and support options: Vendors must offer a way for users to request ADA accommodations, such as:
- An email address
- A web form
- A support website
They should respond to issues promptly, keep us informed about the status of any fixes, and work with us—and the person with a disability—to find reasonable alternative solutions when needed.
Conventional electronic documents must meet accessibility standards if they are used for university business. However, there is an exception for documents that are:
"…about a specific individual, their property, or their account and that are password-protected or otherwise secured."
What does this mean?
If a document is about one person and is shared in a secure way (like through a password-protected portal), it may be exempt from accessibility requirements. This exception does not apply to mass communications. It also does not apply to online course materials.
Example — Personal versus mass communication: An invoice sent to a specific student through a secure portal qualifies for the exception. But if that invoice includes a flyer meant for all students, the flyer must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards.
Recommendation — Avoid repeated accommodations requests: If a student with a disability requests a reasonable accommodation, for example, to make their monthly invoice accessible, we must address that specific need.
But here is the key point: The student should not have to ask for the same accommodation every time they receive a new invoice.
Once we know a student needs accessible invoices, we should update the invoice template to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards. This ensures that all future invoices are accessible by default, supporting the student's independence and reducing the need for repeated requests.
One of the goals of the new rule is to reduce the need for people with disabilities to identify themselves just to access information. By proactively meeting accessibility standards, we help protect their privacy and independence.
Recommendation — Create accessible templates: You can make invoices and other personalized documents accessible by using accessible templates. While these documents may be a lower priority under the new rule, it is smart to address them sooner if you receive frequent accommodation requests on those documents.
This exception applies to content posted on third-party platforms whose main purpose is social networking—where users create and share content to connect with others. Examples include:
- X (formerly Twitter)
While the platform itself is not required to be fully accessible, any content we post on these platforms must follow WCAG 2.1 Level AA, as much as the platform allows.
Example — Platforms with poor accessibility features: Instagram is focused on images and videos. While it allows you to add alternative text to images, that text might not fully explain the content. To improve accessibility, you can include a description of the image or video in the main caption of your post. Check out NASA's Instagram account for great examples of descriptive captions.
Other exceptions
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) provides other exception routes.
Sometimes, making an IT solution fully accessible under WCAG 2.1 AA might change the nature of a university program, service, or activity so much that it no longer serves its original purpose. This is called a fundamental alteration.
Under the ADA, if we believe that meeting a specific accessibility requirement would fundamentally alter a program, we must be able to clearly show why. That means we need to back up the claim with solid evidence. Not just opinions or assumptions.
Note: Only the specific WCAG success criteria that would cause a fundamental alteration may be exempted. All other accessibility requirements still apply.
Note: Even if an exception is granted, we must still provide alternative accommodations to ensure people with disabilities can access the program's benefits to the greatest extent possible.
What counts as a fundamental alteration?
In an academic setting, a fundamental alteration might involve changing essential elements of a course or program. For example:
- Lowering the grading standard
- Removing a required learning objective
- Removing a learning objective that supports safety or well-being
- Dropping a requirement tied to accreditation, licensure, or certification
These kinds of changes could compromise the integrity of the program or the qualifications it is meant to uphold.
Technical standards
Before claiming a fundamental alteration, ask what skills or abilities must a student, employee, or member of the public demonstrate, with or without accommodations?
- Observation
- Communication
- Motor function
- Intellectual-conceptual (e.g., reasoning, analysis, math)
- Behavioral and social attributes
These are often essential for academic success and professional readiness.
Resources and examples
- AHEAD Webinar Recordings on Technical Standards
- Docs with Disabilities Initiative - Technical Standards Toolkit
- National Deaf Center - Specialized Classes and Training (Foreign language, music, commercial driver's licenses, healthcare)
In rare cases, making our IT solutions meet the WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards may create an undue financial or administrative burden. If that happens, we must be able to prove it. This is not a decision we can make lightly or informally.
We must look at the following factors:
- Cost: How expensive would it be to make the content or system accessible?
- Resources: What is the university's budget and staffing situation?
- Impact: Would it disrupt essential operations or services?
- Alternatives: Can we offer access in another way (phone call, email, or in-person support)?
Note: Only the specific WCAG success criteria that would cause an undue burden may be exempted. All other accessibility requirements still apply.
Note: Even if an exception is granted, we must still provide alternative accommodations to ensure people with disabilities can access the program's benefits to the greatest extent possible.
What might count as a financial burden?
A financial burden means that the cost of making something accessible would be significantly difficult or expensive when compared to the university's overall resources, not just a department's budget. This is a fact-based review, and we must look at:
- The university's total annual budget
- Strategic priorities and obligations
- Available discretionary funds
- Other funding options, like grants or partnerships
As a publicly funded institution, we have a responsibility to use our resources wisely and equitably. That includes exploring creative solutions before claiming undue burden.
Each exception must be reviewed individually and supported with detailed evidence. We cannot apply this exception to all IT systems or services at once. Every case must show why accessibility would cause a significant financial hardship based on the university's overall resources, not just a department's budget. Is there proof that requests for ADA funding was denied at the university, system, and Legislative Budget Board (LBB)?
What might count as an administrative burden?
A lack of technical knowledge or training does not qualify as an administrative burden. For example, by April 24, 2026, all web maintainers are expected to understand WCAG 2.1 AA well enough to create or fix content to meet those standards. These guidelines have been available since 2018, and we offer training and support to help everyone meet this expectation.
An administrative burden may exist when there is a severe lack of resources, such as staffing or vendor support. For example:
- Some technologies may be difficult to make accessible due to limited market options.
- Vendors may not yet offer WCAG 2.1 AA-compliant products.
In these cases, we must inform our vendors of the new standards and work with them to improve accessibility. The DOJ expects vendors to make progress. Otherwise, their products may no longer be used.
Example — Old archived documents: A department has hundreds of scanned PDFs from the early 2000's. Making all of them accessible would take months of staff time and thousands of dollars.
What to do instead: Make newer documents accessible and offer alternative access to older ones upon request.
Example — Small department with limited staff: A small office with one web maintainer is asked to rebuild its entire website to meet accessibility standards.
What to do instead: Prioritize high-traffic pages and provide accessible formats or assistance when needed.
Sometimes, technology does not fully meet accessibility standards, but that does not always mean it blocks access for people with disabilities. In rare cases, a small deviation from the standards may still allow everyone to participate meaningfully. This is called minimal impact to access.
To determine whether a non-conforming digital resource still provides access, we use a fact-based process that includes four key tests. People with disabilities must be able to:
- Access the same information as others
- Engage in the same interactions
- Complete the same transactions
- Participate in or benefit from the same services, programs, and activities
We also look at how well the experience holds up in terms of:
- Timeliness
- Privacy
- Independence
- Ease of use
What might count as minimal impact?
Here are a few examples where a small deviation may still meet the standard:
Example — Access to information: Where specific standards are only slightly off.
- A color contrast ratio of 4.45:1 instead of the required 4.5:1 (WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.3)
- Word spacing that is 0.15 times the font size instead of 0.16 times (WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.12)
Example — Engaging in interactions: A chat feature that times out after exactly 20 hours, which is just within the exception allowed by WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 2.2.1.
Example — Conducting transactions: A form that does not meet WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 4.1.1, but still allows users with disabilities to successfully submit it or make a payment.
Recommendation — Talk to vendors about progress: We encourage all vendors to aim for full compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 24, 2026. Perfection is not expected, but progress is. Any minimal impacts must be documented clearly, reviewed regularly, and improved over time. Vendors should be including tentative dates for remediation of any non-conforming success criteria in their Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT), under the Remarks and Explanations.
In rare cases, a conforming alternate version of web content may be used to meet accessibility requirements. However, under the updated ADA Title II rule, this is only allowed when technical or legal limitations make it impossible to make the original content accessible.
- Technical limitations refer to situations where current technology cannot support accessibility (e.g., emerging or experimental formats).
- Legal limitations might include copyright restrictions that prevent editing or adapting content.
It is important to note that lack of technical knowledge is not considered a valid limitation. By the April 24, 2026, all university web maintainers are expected to be familiar with WCAG 2.1 Level AA, the accessibility standard published in 2018. The DOJ has emphasized that this should be achievable, especially with the training resources available.
Recommendation — Limit use of alternate versions: While alternate versions might seem like a quick fix, they come with risks:
- They can become outdated quickly.
- They may result in segregated access, offering a lesser experience to users with disabilities.
- They must be kept up-to-date alongside the original content, which can be resource-intensive.
For these reasons, the preferred approach is universal design, or creating content that is accessible to everyone from the start. This not only ensures compliance but also promotes equity and inclusion across our digital spaces.