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 I mentioned above, under each WCAG 2.1 principle is a list of guidelines, and under each guideline are compliance standards, with techniques and failure examples at each level. Some guidelines include only Level A items; others include items for multiple levels of conformance, building from A to AAA. At each stage, you can easily see what more you would need to do to reach Level AA or AAA. In this way, many websites include elements at multiple levels of accessibility.
The authoring tool is CKEditor itself, and languages include Dutch, English and German. CKSource provides step-by-step evaluation guidance on web accessibility results and will display the information within the web pages themselves. The program will also modify the presentation of web pages as needed. It automatically checks single web pages, and supported formats include HTML and XHTML. Licenses are available open source.
(emphasis added). The fact that public accommodations have “flexibility” in how to comply with the ADA’s effective communication requirement has been lost in the past eight years, even though DOJ made this point in its 2010 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for websites. In that document, DOJ stated that a 24/7 staffed telephone line could provide a compliant alternative to an accessible website. The few courts to have considered this argument in the context of an early motion to dismiss have recognized its legitimacy, but have allowed cases to move forward into discovery on this and other issues. There have been no decisions on the merits addressing the viability of having a 24/7 telephone option in lieu of an accessible website.
Inclusive Design Research Centre released its web accessibility program, AChecker on September 19, 2008. The characteristics that make this program appealing is it is interactive, international and customizable, depending on your needs. AChecker allows users to create their own desired guidelines as well as write their own accessibility checks. The program is defined by the OAC (Open Accessibility Checks). Guidelines covered are WCAG 2.0 – W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, WCAG 1.0—W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, Section 508, U.S. federal procurement standards, BITV, Italian accessibility legislation, Stanca Act, and German government standards.
Tags: 2.0, 2.1, 2010, accessibility, ADA, Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ANPRM, attorney general, Congress, Department of Justice, Due Process, effective communication, House of Representatives, Interpretation, Jeff Sessions, June, Legal Action, litigation, motion to dismiss, public accommodations, September 25, Staffed Telephone, Standards, Statutory Authority, Title III, WCAG, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, website
Pa11y is a program offered through the Nature Publishing Group. It monitors the web accessibility of your web sites with the pa11y-dashboard specifically. The most recent version 1.6.0 was released on April 8, 2015, and it covers guidelines including WCAG 2.0 — W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, Section 508, and U.S. federal procurement standards.
Another useful tool for ADA website compliance is an automated ADA Website Compliance Checker. This is a software program that automatically checks whether certain conditions are met. A program used for testing ADA compliance might check whether all images do indeed have alt text, or whether the color contrast between the text and the background meets a certain minimum level. Some programs check multiple conditions at once, while others are designed to check just one accessibility feature. Some check whether they meet specific technical or legislated requirements, such as the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.