Comment on FR Doc # 2026-07663

I submit this comment in my individual capacity, based on direct experience in higher education supporting faculty through this transition. I am responding in particular to the Department of Justice request for input on the burden the 2024 rule places on covered entities and on whether the Department should pursue further rulemaking to consider regulatory alternatives. I support the extension of the compliance dates. The additional year is necessary, but the underlying problem the extension addresses will not solve itself with time alone. My comments concern the practical burden of meeting the WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance requirement adopted in the 2024 rule, as it falls on the faculty who create instructional content. The current rule places the burden of technical conformance on content experts whose expertise lies outside web development. Faculty are subject-matter authorities in their disciplines; they are not web developers, and they are not always software experts. They should not have to be. Expecting content creators to acquire working knowledge of HTML and document markup to deliver their own curriculum is a step too far. This gap is made worse by the learning management and content management systems faculty are required to use. These platforms frequently produce non-conformant markup on their own, and bringing content into compliance often forces faculty to drop into the underlying HTML and correct it by hand, a task well outside the skill set of most instructors and outside the role they were hired to perform. The more productive path is for the Department to focus on ensuring that creators have adequate, mature authoring tools that produce conformant output by default. Until that tooling exists and is widely available, the rule effectively asks people to meet a standard their everyday software does not yet help them meet, and in many cases actively works against. This is not hypothetical, and it speaks directly to unintended consequences. I have worked with faculty who are now considering removing content presented in table form and dropping it from their curriculum entirely, because making complex tabular material conformant under the current requirements is, in their assessment, too difficult or simply not feasible with the tools they have. That is the opposite of the rule's intent: instead of more accessible content, students lose access to the content altogether. I also urge clearly define exemptions and guidance for higher education. The rule's broad sweep over all course content does not account for instructional material in which the educational value is carried by the medium itself. A recorded demonstration of a clinical or hands-on technique, an annotated work of visual art where the meaning lives in the image, or a performance captured for critique cannot always be reduced to a fully WCAG-conformant format without losing the very content being taught. The same is true of technical notation. Chemistry is a clear example, where chemical structures, reaction mechanisms, and equations rely on spatial and symbolic conventions that current authoring tools and markup standards handle poorly, leaving faculty without a practical way to present them in conformant form. Many professional and career programs, including aviation, dental hygiene, the visual and performing arts, the sciences, and numerous skilled-trade pathways, are built around exactly this kind of material. Clear guidance for postsecondary instructional content would prevent institutions from cutting that material rather than risk non-conformance. I support the goals of people with disabilities and their right to equal access. My concern is one of sequencing. The technology support available to content creators must improve before the rule's expectations can realistically be met. Beyond the current extension, I believe a phased-in approach may also be needed, one that prioritizes the highest-impact, highest-traffic content first and gives lower-priority instructional material a longer runway as authoring tools mature. I recommend: Treat improved, conformant-by-default authoring and content management tools as a prerequisite, and focus its efforts on ensuring those tools exist and are available to content creators before full enforcement. Clearly define exemptions and guidance for postsecondary instructional content, particularly material whose educational value is carried by the medium itself, including hands-on demonstrations, visual and performing arts, and technical notation such as chemistry. Adopt a phased-in compliance approach that prioritizes the highest-impact, highest-traffic content first and gives lower-priority instructional material a longer runway. Maturing the tools first, and sequencing the requirements realistically, is how we can achieve accessible content in practice. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.