AASA
AdvocacySupport
Wcag as mandatory standard
Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities
DOJ-CRT-2026-0067-0001Rule
Comments
189
Awaiting comments
Deadline
Closed on Jun 23, 2026
Closed Jun 23, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-26%
-26% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities
- Posted
- Apr 20, 2026
- Comment period
- Apr 20, 2026 – Jun 23, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-07663
- CFR
- 28 CFR Part 35
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
-26%
Net support
Support60Oppose109Other20
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -26% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Other
1
Academic
4
Business
4
Government
9
Individual
142
Trade association
2
Advocacy
27
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Apr 20, 2026Deadline Jun 23, 2026
Apr 20May 4May 18Jun 1Jun 15Jun 22
Support60Oppose109Other20
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
31%
58%
11%
Advocacy
19%
74%
7%
Government
67%
22%
11%
Business
75%
25%
0%
Academic
50%
50%
0%
Trade association
0%
100%
0%
Other
0%
0%
100%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Accessibility timeline delays59
Extension of compliance deadline44
Unreasonable administrative and financial burden29
Website and app accessibility29
Wcag as mandatory standard18
Good-faith remediation safe harbor12
Social equity and discrimination10
Vendor compliance requirements9
Instructor-created materials accessibility5
Accessibility for blind voters4
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Accessibility timeline delays | Extension of compliance deadline | Wcag as mandatory standard | Good-faith remediation safe harbor | Unreasonable administrative and financial burden |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AASA AdvocacySupport The School Superintendents Association (AASA) supports the one-year delay in implementing Web Content Accessibility Guid | · | · | · | · | |
Allyant BusinessSupport Allyant, an accessibility services provider, supports the Department's goal of ensuring government services are accessib | · | · | · | · | |
American Association of People with Disabilities AdvocacyOppose The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) opposes the Department of Justice's decision to extend compl | · | · | |||
American Council of Engineering Companies Trade associationOppose The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) opposes the proposed rule because highly technical engineering deli | · | · | · | · | |
American Council of the Blind AdvocacyOppose The American Council of the Blind (ACB) opposes the extension of compliance dates for Title II website accessibility reg | · | · | · | · | |
American Foundation for the Blind AdvocacyOppose The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) opposes the extension of compliance dates for the ADA Title II rule on websi | · | · | |||
Association of California State Employees with Disabilities (ACSED) AdvocacyOppose The Association of California State Employees with Disabilities (ACSED) opposes the proposed interim final rule to exten | · | · | · | · | |
Autistic Self Advocacy Network AdvocacyOppose The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), a disability rights advocacy organization, opposes the extension of complianc | · | · | |||
Bay State Council of the Blind AdvocacyOppose The Bay State Council of the Blind, a non-profit advocacy organization, opposes the Department of Justice's decision to | · | · | · | · | |
CAST AdvocacyOppose CAST, a nonprofit organization specializing in education research and universal design, opposes the extension of complia | · | · | |||
Finger Lakes Independence Center AdvocacyOppose The Finger Lakes Independence Center, an organization serving people with disabilities, opposes the extension of complia | · | · | · | ||
Guillaume & Co. LLC d/b/a ADA Access for All BusinessSupport Marc Guillaume, principal of an accessibility firm, supports the one-year extension of the compliance dates for state an | · | · | · | · | |
National Association of Counties (NACo) AdvocacySupport The National Association of Counties (NACo) supports the extension of compliance deadlines for web and mobile accessibil | · | · | · | · | |
National Federation of the Blind AdvocacyOppose The National Federation of the Blind opposes the proposed extension of compliance dates for web and mobile app accessibi | · | · | · | · | |
National School Attorneys Association AdvocacySupport The National School Attorneys Association (NSAA) supports the Department of Justice's decision to extend the compliance | · | · | · | ||
Netsmart Technologies BusinessSupport Netsmart Technologies, Inc., a health IT software provider, supports the goal of the rule but argues that the proposed o | · | · | · |
Allyant
BusinessSupport
Good-faith remediation safe harbor
American Association of People with Disabilities
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
Extension of compliance deadline
Wcag as mandatory standard
American Council of Engineering Companies
Trade associationOppose
Unreasonable administrative and financial burden
American Council of the Blind
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
American Foundation for the Blind
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
Extension of compliance deadline
Wcag as mandatory standard
Association of California State Employees with Disabilities (ACSED)
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
Autistic Self Advocacy Network
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
Extension of compliance deadline
Wcag as mandatory standard
Bay State Council of the Blind
AdvocacyOppose
Unreasonable administrative and financial burden
CAST
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
Extension of compliance deadline
Wcag as mandatory standard
Finger Lakes Independence Center
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
Extension of compliance deadline
Guillaume & Co. LLC d/b/a ADA Access for All
BusinessSupport
Good-faith remediation safe harbor
National Association of Counties (NACo)
AdvocacySupport
Good-faith remediation safe harbor
National Federation of the Blind
AdvocacyOppose
Accessibility timeline delays
National School Attorneys Association
AdvocacySupport
Extension of compliance deadline
Good-faith remediation safe harbor
Netsmart Technologies
BusinessSupport
Accessibility timeline delays
Extension of compliance deadline
6 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jun 22, 2026Melody CarverOpposeIndividual
An instructional technologist argues that the current accessibility requirements are too technically demanding for instructors to meet consistently, leading some to remove materials entirely. They suggest a tiered approach where instructors meet a baseline of accessibility first and only address more complex requirements (like human-reviewed captions) as specific accommodations are requested.
Read comment → - Jun 20, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividual
An individual, likely a faculty member or student, argues against the proposed accessibility requirements for materials within a Learning Management System (LMS). They contend that because students with disabilities already receive individualized accommodations and the public cannot access these materials, requiring full accessibility for all LMS content is unnecessary and would hinder real-time teaching methods like handwritten notes.
Read comment → - Apr 30, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual
The commenter supports the Department's decision to extend the compliance dates for the Title II web and mobile accessibility rule, noting its importance for the higher education sector. They request clearer guidance on how the rule applies to instructor-created materials, specifically regarding ownership, the limitations of individual faculty resources, and the possibility of using accessible alternatives instead of full WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance for all artifacts.
Read comment → - Apr 26, 2026Janis SmithOpposeIndividual📎 Attachment
A higher education mathematics instructor opposes the proposed ADA rules because they believe requiring accessibility for all course materials—even those not used by students with disabilities—will force instructors to delete helpful resources or reduce the time spent on other student needs. The commenter argues that these requirements create a burden for hypothetical students while potentially decreasing the quality of education for the majority of students.
Read comment → - Apr 26, 2026Deborah LillieSupportIndividual
A visual art professor expresses frustration over the time and effort required to make their course materials accessible to students with visual impairments. While they question the practical logic of the regulation, they explicitly state they are "deeply grateful" for the extension of the compliance deadline.
Read comment →