When you insert an image into a post or page, consider providing a rich description for the caption that will improve the reading experience for everyone, but especially folks who can’t see the image. Be creative. Instead of “My son on his swing,” try “My son is playing on his favorite swing. His face is filled with pure joy on a beautiful Spring day. Perfection.” The goal here is to convey the feeling of the image.
Covered entities are required to provide aids and services unless doing so would result in an “undue burden,” which is defined as significant difficulty or expense. If a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden, the entity must provide another effective aid or service, if possible, that would not result in an undue burden. Determining what constitutes an undue burden will vary from entity to entity and sometimes from one year to the next. The impact of changing economic conditions on the resources available to an entity may also be taken into consideration in making this determination.
The ruling references the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 created by the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) describes itself as “an international community where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards.” The complete Web standards for ADA accessibility can be found here.
Video remote interpreting (VRI) is a fee-based service that uses video conferencing technology to access an off-site interpreter to provide real-time sign language or oral interpreting services for conversations between hearing people and people who are deaf or have hearing loss. The new regulations give covered entities the choice of using VRI or on-site interpreters in situations where either would be effective. VRI can be especially useful in rural areas where on-site interpreters may be difficult to obtain. Additionally, there may be some cost advantages in using VRI in certain circumstances. However, VRI will not be effective in all circumstances. For example, it will not be effective if the person who needs the interpreter has difficulty seeing the screen (either because of vision loss or because he or she cannot be properly positioned to see the screen, because of an injury or other condition). In these circumstances, an on-site interpreter may be required.
Hey Casey, this is one of the areas where things get a little weird because the W3 doesn’t actually have any say over the ADA guidelines, it is more than the ADA guidelines adopted the WCAG 2.0 guidelines as just that, a guideline to help. As far as I know, the tool you’ve linked to hasn’t been used in any judgements I’m aware of. Usually when it comes down to making a decision on if something is/isn’t compliant they have people use the actual PAWS tools and show what elements do/don’t work as intended or are otherwise inaccessible. Hope this helps!
As a user who, while I can use a mouse, also likes to use the keyboard, I have found your articles very interesting. I have been trying to update the design of my site http://www.jamesrmeyer.com to include accessibility as much as possible, without compromising usability for the majority of users. I would appreciate some feedback on the site design.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also enforces Title II of the ADA relating to access to programs, services and activities receiving HHS federal financial assistance. This includes ensuring that people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have access to sign language interpreters and other auxiliary aids in hospitals and clinics when needed for effective communication.
Both sites support multiple languages (English and Spanish), and both include lang="es" on the element of the Spanish pages. However, on the CDC site, in addition to lang="es" the element has xml:lang="en". This potentially sends mixed messages to screen readers (is this web page in Spanish or English?) JAWS 13 seems to honor lang rather than xml:lang but I don't know about other screen readers.
Use the plugin, follow its instruction, and resolve the compliance issues identified. You’ll find that using the plugin will save you an incredible amount of time as you maintain your site’s compliance on a month-to-month basis. The best part, it identifies the compliance issues and tells you exactly which code elements are out of compliance and why! Our average customer is reporting a 10x-20x time savings over manually identifying and fixing these problems. In extreme cases more than 30x time savings has been reported! Using the plugin alone does not guarantee compliance. Some parts of accessibility can’t be automatically scanned and must be manually audited but we also provide independent 3rd-party audits and certifications of compliance. The Accessibility Suite Pro Plugin for WordPress makes this process profoundly easier.
Web designers often design in such a way that does not allow the user to adjust font size or color. While they may be protecting their brand, they are also inhibiting some users. Many visually impaired need to use high contrast color settings or very large fonts to read a website. Don't design your website in a way that makes it impossible for them to do this. 
more than the list of websites, I appreciate the 10-second method you describe. I think it's worth explaining to developers and site owners that there are indeed some simple tricks to quickly assess a web page without having a deep understanding of the WCAG. Personally, I like removing all the CSS styles (with the Web Developer Toolbar in Firefox, shortcut is Shift+Ctrl+S). If the page is still pretty readable, with no clumsy technical code; if it shows a neat heading structure; if lists appear well structured and appropriately used; if all text, is in black (except links), left-aligned, and with its default font and size; then it's been probably properly coded, HTML-wise.
The past few years have brought great awareness to the importance of creating an accessible website. While the process of ensuring you’ve covered all your bases takes time, it’s very much worth the extra effort. Using the tools profiled above are a great way to add features (visible or not) that will help every user get the most out of your WordPress site.
Video remote interpreting (VRI) is a fee-based service that uses video conferencing technology to access an off-site interpreter to provide real-time sign language or oral interpreting services for conversations between hearing people and people who are deaf or have hearing loss. The new regulations give covered entities the choice of using VRI or on-site interpreters in situations where either would be effective. VRI can be especially useful in rural areas where on-site interpreters may be difficult to obtain. Additionally, there may be some cost advantages in using VRI in certain circumstances. However, VRI will not be effective in all circumstances. For example, it will not be effective if the person who needs the interpreter has difficulty seeing the screen (either because of vision loss or because he or she cannot be properly positioned to see the screen, because of an injury or other condition). In these circumstances, an on-site interpreter may be required.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was first passed in 1990. Twenty years later, the US Department of Justice released an update called the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. These standards cover the design of physical spaces and have been interpreted to include web locations as well, so it can be difficult for the would-be accessible website designer to use them.
×