Digital Accessibility Gaps of U.S. Higher Education Websites: Insights from a Multi-Institution Automated Accessibility Audit

Digital Accessibility Gaps of U.S. Higher Education Websites: Insights from a Multi-Institution Automated Accessibility Audit | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Digital Accessibility Gaps of U.S. Higher Education Websites: Insights from a Multi-Institution Automated Accessibility Audit Tolu Adedoja This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7611216/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires higher education institutions in the United States to ensure their digital resources meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. However, persistent accessibility barriers continue to limit equitable access. Objective: To evaluate the accessibility of higher education websites in the United States, focusing on compliance with ADA and Section 508 standards. Methods: Websites from 20 universities (10 public, 10 private) were audited. For each institution, the homepage and Disability Services page were evaluated using the Accessible Name & Description Inspector (ANDI) across four modules: Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, and Color Contrast—yielding 160 page–module scans. Total elements scanned, total alerts, and alert types were recorded, with screenshots for reproducibility. An “alert” refers to any automated flag generated by ANDI indicating a potential accessibility violation under WCAG 2.1 AA criteria; alerts vary in magnitude and require manual verification to confirm actual noncompliance. Results: Across 160 page–module scans, the audit identified 1,626 accessibility alerts, with Color Contrast accounting for 54% of all violations. Frequent issues included missing alternative text, link elements without accessible names, ambiguous link text, and numerous cases requiring manual color-contrast checks. Homepages generally exhibited more alerts than Disability Services pages, and public and private institutions showed broadly similar overall alert frequencies. All differences reported are descriptive and not the result of inferential statistical testing. Conclusions: Accessibility gaps remain prevalent in U.S. higher education websites, even on pages designed to serve disabled users. Regular automated audits using tools like ANDI—combined with governance, template-level fixes, and content-authoring practices—can help institutions identify and remediate issues, improving compliance and equitable digital access. web accessibility WCAG 2.1 ADA Title II Section 508 higher education automated accessibility audit ANDI color contrast Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Equal access to digital content is both a legal mandate and an ethical necessity for higher education institutions in the U.S. The Department of Justice’s final Title II rule, published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2024, mandates WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance for state and local government websites and mobile applications, with compliance deadlines of April 24, 2026 (for entities serving populations of 50,000+), and April 26, 2027, for smaller entities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 ). In parallel, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability-based discrimination in federally funded programs, and Section 508 mandates accessible information and communication technology—including websites—for all federal institutions (U.S. General Services Administration, n.d.). Finally, a recent literature survey also maps trends and gaps in accessibility research across CHI and ASSETS proceedings from 1994–2019, showing rapid growth in the field but a disproportionate focus on blindness/low vision (over ~ 40% of papers in the past decade), frequent reliance on small participant samples (median ≈ 13), and underrepresentation of cognitive, learning, and mobility disabilities—highlighting areas in need of broader methods and populations (Mack et al., 2021 ). Beyond legal compliance, disability studies frameworks emphasize that accessibility is a matter of equity and inclusion rather than mere technical conformance. The social model of disability frames barriers as products of inaccessible environments rather than individual impairments (Oliver, 1990 ), while Universal Design for Learning (UDL) promotes proactive, inclusive design principles that benefit all users, not just those with disabilities (CAST, 2018 ). These perspectives position digital accessibility as an integral component of educational quality and institutional responsibility. Nonetheless, digital accessibility barriers persist in higher education. A research brief from the ADA National Network highlights that academic engagement with digital accessibility and disability inclusion remains limited, despite increasing demand for inclusive online learning environments (ADA National Network, n.d.). Globally, a systematic literature review of 42 studies reports widespread noncompliance with accessibility standards across university websites (Campoverde-Molina, Luján-Mora, & Valverde, 2023 ). In the U.S., recent WebAIM Million reports consistently show that roughly 95–96% of top homepages contain detectable WCAG failures, underscoring the breadth of the problem (WebAIM, 2025 ). Automated accessibility audits using tools such as the Accessible Name & Description Inspector (ANDI) and WAVE can identify many detectable WCAG issues and support human evaluation (Social Security Administration, n.d.; WebAIM, n.d.). Prior research has also employed Tenon in audit workflows (e.g., Scanlon et al., 2021 ). For instance, an evaluation of 139 U.S. physics-program webpages reported pervasive WCAG 2.0 errors—only one page showed minimal accessibility errors—with the most common problems involving non-text content, information/relationships, link purpose, resize text, and name/role/value (Scanlon et al., 2021 ). A similar audit of 30 Indian university portals likewise found widespread deficiencies relative to WCAG 2.0 and documented common violation patterns (Patra & Dash, 2017 ). However, few studies have examined both public and private U.S. universities in a consistent, reproducible manner, and even fewer have compared institution-wide homepages with targeted Disability Services pages. This distinction is important because homepages serve as the primary gateway for all users, while Disability Services pages are specifically intended to support disabled students and are often subject to greater accessibility scrutiny. By comparing these two page types, this study offers a unique lens on whether accessibility efforts are applied institution-wide or concentrated in designated “accessibility” sections. Building on this foundation, our study conducted a structured, automated accessibility audit using ANDI across 20 U.S. universities (10 public, 10 private). We evaluated both homepages and Disability Services pages using four ANDI modules—Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, and Color Contrast—to assess WCAG, ADA, and Section 508 compliance. Our findings aim to provide a measurable benchmark for digital accessibility in higher education and inform targeted remediation efforts. Methods Audit Design This study employed a cross-sectional automated accessibility audit guided by compliance benchmarks established under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 at Level AA. These standards collectively define key requirements for digital accessibility in higher education. The Accessible Name & Description Inspector (ANDI), a browser-based testing tool developed by the Social Security Administration, was selected for its ease of use, open-source availability, and ability to conduct quick, repeatable automated checks without requiring paid licenses. ANDI is widely recognized as an effective tool for identifying common accessibility issues that can be manually verified for accuracy. ANDI Modules Used Four core ANDI modules were selected for this audit to capture a broad range of accessibility dimensions: Graphics/Images – Flags missing or incomplete alternative text (alt attributes), placeholder or suspicious alternative text, decorative images incorrectly marked, and the presence of images of text. Links/Buttons – Detects ambiguous link text, missing accessible names, and issues with keyboard access or focus indicators. Headings – Identifies skipped heading levels, empty headings, and other structural issues affecting page navigation and comprehension. Color Contrast – Checks for insufficient contrast between text and background (< 4.5:1 for normal text and < 3:1 for large text) and flags cases where manual verification is recommended. These modules were chosen because they align directly with critical WCAG 2.1 success criteria and provide a balanced view of both content-level and structural accessibility barriers. Sample Selection This audit was designed as an exploratory, descriptive baseline study to provide an initial snapshot of accessibility compliance in U.S. higher education. The sample consisted of 20 institutions — 10 public universities and 10 private universities — selected using a purposive sampling approach to ensure representation across multiple geographic regions and a mix of large and mid-sized enrollment levels. Inclusion criteria required that each institution maintain an active Disability Services webpage linked from its primary navigation or footer menu. For each institution, two webpages were tested: Homepage – the primary entry point for the institution’s online presence. Disability Services page – a page specifically intended to provide information and resources for students with disabilities. For each page type, the four ANDI modules (Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, Color Contrast) were run, resulting in 8 audit entries per university. Across the 20 universities, this yielded a total of 160 audit entries (20 universities × 2 pages × 4 modules). Sampling detail We used purposive sampling to ensure variety in size and geography. “Large” institutions were operationalized as ≥ 25,000 total headcount and “mid-sized” as 8,000–24,999, based on the most recent publicly reported enrollments (IPEDS categories). To balance geography, we targeted representation from the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, with at least one public and one private university in each region. The final sample met these targets (e.g., Northeast: 1 public/4 private; Midwest: 3 public/1 private; South: 3 public/3 private; West: 3 public/2 private). All candidate institutions met the inclusion criteria; no institutions were excluded for missing Disability Services pages, blocking automated testing, or undergoing redesign during the audit window. Testing Procedure All evaluations were conducted on August 12, 2025, to ensure results reflected a consistent snapshot in time and were not influenced by ongoing content updates or design changes. Conducting the audit on a single day allowed for comparability across institutions but also means findings represent conditions at one specific point in time. Anonymization of Institutions While the 20 institutions sampled in this study are identifiable in the original dataset, they are not named in this paper to maintain focus on aggregate trends and systemic patterns rather than on institution-specific performance. This approach is consistent with ethical considerations in accessibility research, where the aim is to highlight broader compliance issues rather than publicly attribute noncompliance to individual institutions. The anonymized dataset and figure-generation scripts are available upon reasonable request; the full list of sampled institutions is also available to qualified researchers for replication. Data Extraction and Analysis For each webpage, the total number of elements scanned, total number of alerts, specific alert types, and descriptive notes were recorded directly from the ANDI output interface. Screenshots were taken for each module’s results to provide a visual record and facilitate later validation. Data were compiled into structured comma-separated values (CSV) files for public and private institutions, which were then merged into a combined dataset. Analysis focused on aggregated results, differences between public and private institutions, and contrasts between homepage and Disability Services pages. Analysis was descriptive in nature. No inferential statistical tests were conducted, and differences between groups are not interpreted as statistically significant. Limitations The small sample size (n = 10 per group) and single-day snapshot limit the generalizability of the findings. Web content is dynamic and can change frequently, meaning results may differ at other points in time. As an exploratory baseline audit, this study is intended to identify potential accessibility concerns and patterns rather than to provide definitive or longitudinal conclusions. The sample was selected purposively to ensure a range of geographic regions and institutional types, but this approach does not provide statistical representativeness. Results The accessibility audit evaluated two webpage types — the homepage and the Disability Services page — for 20 U.S. higher education institutions (10 public, 10 private). Four ANDI modules were tested on each page type: Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, and Color Contrast — resulting in 160 page–module scans. Overall Patterns The most prevalent accessibility issues were detected in the Color Contrast module, followed by Links/Buttons. Issues related to Headings were comparatively rare, and Graphics/Images produced moderate alert counts. Across both public and private institutions, homepages consistently exhibited more accessibility alerts than Disability Services pages. The largest gap was observed in Color Contrast alerts, with public university homepages averaging 36.1 alerts per scan compared to just 9.9 alerts on private university Disability Services pages, indicating a more than threefold difference in magnitude. To contextualize these magnitudes, external audits show similar patterns. WebAIM’s Million reports find that roughly 95–96% of top homepages contain detectable WCAG failures, with low-contrast text and missing alternative text among the most common issues (WebAIM, 2025 ). Prior higher-education audits likewise report widespread violations and frequent color-contrast and link/name problems (Scanlon et al., 2021 ; Patra & Dash, 2017 ). Because tools and scoring protocols differ, we treat our counts as directional rather than directly comparable one-to-one with those studies. Private Institutions For private universities, Color Contrast accounted for the highest number of alerts, particularly on homepages (284 alerts; average 28.4 alerts per scan). Links/Buttons followed closely, with 173 homepage alerts (average 17.3) and 65 alerts (average 6.5) on Disability Services pages. Graphics/Images yielded 87 homepage alerts (average 8.7) and 42 disability page alerts (average 4.2). Headings showed minimal issues, with only 12 homepage alerts (average 1.2) and 1 alert (average 0.1) on disability pages. Public Institutions Public universities recorded the highest overall Color Contrast violations on homepages, with 361 total alerts (average 36.1). Links/Buttons presented the second-highest issue category, with 151 homepage alerts (average 15.1) and 121 alerts (average 12.1) on disability pages. Graphics/Images alerts were lower — 53 homepage alerts (average 5.3) and 23 disability page alerts (average 2.3). Headings again showed fewer problems, with 14 homepage alerts (average 1.4) and 6 alerts (average 0.6) on disability pages. Comparative Trends Homepage vs. Disability Services Pages : Both public and private institutions had more alerts on homepages than on Disability Services pages across all modules. Institution Type Differences : Public institutions had more total Color Contrast and Links/Buttons alerts than private institutions. Low Headings Alerts : Across all scans, Headings consistently showed the fewest alerts, suggesting fewer structural hierarchy issues relative to other categories. Targeted Accessibility Efforts : Lower alert counts on Disability Services pages suggest that institutions may be applying accessibility practices more rigorously on these resource-specific pages compared to general entry pages. Differences reported here are descriptive and should not be interpreted as statistically significant due to sample size constraints and the absence of inferential testing. Overall Accessibility Alert Findings Across the 20 universities sampled (10 public and 10 private), the automated ANDI audit identified a total of 1,626 accessibility alerts across all page types and modules. Public institutions accounted for 863 alerts (53.1 percent; mean = 10.79 alerts per page–module scan), while private institutions accounted for 763 alerts (46.9 percent; mean = 9.54 alerts per page–module scan). On average, each audited page–module combination produced 10.79 alerts for public institutions and 9.54 alerts for private institutions. Full counts and averages for all modules, institution types, and page types are available in Appendix Tables A1–A5. Alerts by Module When alerts were broken down by the four ANDI modules, Color Contrast generated the highest number of alerts in both groups. For public institutions, Color Contrast issues totaled 495 alerts (57.4 percent of all public alerts) with an average of 24.75 alerts per module scan. Private institutions recorded 383 Color Contrast alerts (50.2 percent of private alerts) with an average of 19.15 alerts per module scan. Total color contrast alerts for all institutions: 878 (54%). Links/Buttons was the second-most frequent issue category, with 272 alerts for public institutions (31.5 percent) and 238 alerts for private institutions (31.2 percent). Total links/buttons alerts for all institutions: 510 (31%). Graphics/Images accounted for 76 public alerts (8.8 percent) and 129 private alerts (16.9 percent). Total graphics/images alerts for all institutions: 205 (13%). Headings generated the fewest alerts, with 20 public alerts (2.3 percent) and 13 private alerts (1.7 percent). Total headings alerts for all institutions: 33 (2%). Total Alerts: Public: 863 (53.1%) Private: 763 (46.9%) Page Type Observations While this analysis aggregated results across both homepages and Disability Services pages, preliminary review of the dataset suggests that Color Contrast and Links/Buttons issues were prevalent on both page types, with only minor differences between them. Graphics/Images alerts were more variable, and Heading structure issues were relatively rare across both groups. Differences by Page Type When aggregated across all institutions, homepages demonstrated consistently more accessibility issues than Disability Services pages. Homepages averaged 14.19 alerts per module (total = 1,135 alerts), compared to 6.14 alerts per module (total = 491 alerts) for Disability Services pages. This suggests that, while institutions may prioritize accessibility on pages dedicated to disability resources, their main web portals remain less compliant with accessibility standards. Differences by Module Across all universities and page types, Color Contrast emerged as the most common source of accessibility issues, with a total of 878 alerts (mean = 21.95 alerts per module). This was followed by: Links/Buttons – 510 alerts (mean = 12.75) Graphics/Images – 205 alerts (mean = 5.13) Headings – 33 alerts (mean = 0.83) The dominance of Color Contrast issues highlights ongoing challenges with WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.3 (Contrast Minimum) and 1.4.6 (Contrast Enhanced). Module × Page Type × Institution Type Patterns Several notable patterns emerged from the cross-tabulation of results: Public University Homepages recorded the highest mean for any module–page combination, with 36.1 Color Contrast alerts on average. Graphics/Images issues were more prevalent on Private University Homepages (mean = 8.7) compared to Public (mean = 5.3). Links/Buttons issues were highest on Private Homepages (mean = 17.3) but were also substantial on Public Disability Services pages (mean = 12.1). Headings issues were relatively infrequent but slightly higher on Public Homepages (mean = 1.4) than on Private (mean = 1.2). Overall, the automated accessibility audit revealed substantial gaps in compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards across both public and private institutions. While both groups exhibited similar patterns of recurring issues, private universities recorded slightly higher mean alert counts, particularly in the Graphics/Images and Links/Buttons modules. Across the sample, Disability Services pages consistently demonstrated fewer accessibility alerts than homepages, suggesting targeted efforts to make disability-related content more compliant. However, high alert frequencies in color contrast and missing or incomplete alternative text indicate persistent systemic barriers. These findings underscore the need for institution-wide accessibility strategies that extend beyond designated Disability Services pages. Discussion This multi-institution audit reveals persistent accessibility gaps across U.S. higher-education websites despite clear legal and technical standards (ADA, Section 508, WCAG 2.1 AA). Patterns in the data point most strongly to color contrast and link/button semantics—issues that typically originate in brand tokens (colors), component libraries, and authoring practices rather than in isolated pages. Disability Services pages tended to have fewer alerts than homepages, suggesting that institutions may concentrate remediation in resource-specific areas while leaving broader site templates and content workflows less governed. These findings underscore that sustainable accessibility depends on governance, design systems, and content operations, not just one-off fixes. All patterns reported are descriptive and should not be interpreted as statistically significant. Limitations Automated tools like ANDI can produce false positives and do not cover all WCAG success criteria; some issues require manual verification. The audit reflects a single point in time, and websites change frequently; results could differ at another date. The sample (20 universities; 10 public/10 private) offers balance but not representativeness of all U.S. institutions. These constraints frame the study as an exploratory baseline; future work should expand the sample, include longitudinal scans, and combine automated with manual testing. Observed differences between public and private institutions were modest. Private institutions showed slightly higher alert counts in Graphics/Images and Links/Buttons, which may reflect differences in brand/design choices, content volume, or CMS/editor practices. However, the persistence of alerts across both groups indicates that systemic factors—governance, design tokens, component quality, and training—are the primary drivers. Again, these differences are descriptive only. Actionability of Alerts Several high-frequency alerts are highly actionable at the template level. Color-contrast failures can be reduced by updating brand color tokens/CSS variables once, propagating compliant contrast site-wide. Missing or ambiguous link names are typically content-authoring fixes (short guidance and pre-publish checks work well). Heading structure is best addressed in templates and component patterns. In contrast, certain ANDI “needs review” items (e.g., complex graphics or context-dependent alt text) require manual judgment and should be triaged after systemic template fixes. In practice, institutions should prioritize template-level fixes for color tokens and structure/landmarks before tackling content-specific issues that require manual review. Recommendations To move from ad-hoc fixes to durable compliance, institutions can implement the following steps with clear owners, cadence, and metrics: 1. Name an owner and a working group (Weeks 0–4). Appoint an Accessibility Program Owner and a cross-functional working group (IT, design, dev, content, procurement, Disability Services). Publish a campus Accessibility Policy (WCAG 2.1 AA, roadmap to 2.2) and a public Accessibility Statement with a feedback channel. 2. Scan on a schedule (Quarterly at minimum). Run automated audits on high-traffic templates (homepage, admissions, academics, financial aid, Disability Services) every quarter using ANDI/WAVE (and one additional engine if available). Track alerts per page–module, % pages with zero criticals, time-to-fix, and keep a versioned log. 3. Fix templates first (Months 1–2). o Color contrast: Update brand color tokens/CSS variables once so compliant contrast propagates site-wide. o Structure & navigation: Enforce headings hierarchy, landmarks, focus order, and link-text patterns in shared components before page-by-page cleanup. 4. Harden authoring (Months 1–3). Create a 2-page Authoring Style Guide (alt text, headings, link text, tables/PDFs). Provide a 60–90-minute editor training each term and add pre-publish checks in the CMS. 5. Set SLAs for remediation (Ongoing). Triage by user impact and WCAG severity. Example SLAs: Critical = 2 weeks; Major = 30 days; Minor = next quarterly cycle. 6. Procurement controls (Immediate for new buys). Require VPAT/ACR or WCAG conformance statements for all new products and include accessibility criteria in RFPs/contracts. 7. User feedback & validation (Each semester). Add a site-wide “Report an accessibility issue” link and conduct semesterly usability checks with students using assistive technologies. 8. Transparent reporting (Each term). Publish a short dashboard: number of pages scanned, % passing templates, issues resolved, and upcoming milestones. 90-day starter plan: Days 0–30: Appoint owner; publish policy/statement; baseline scans; begin color-token fixes. Days 31–60: Template remediation; authoring guide; editor training; set SLAs; add feedback link. Days 61–90: Re-scan; publish dashboard; integrate procurement checks; schedule next quarterly audit. Conclusion This exploratory baseline audit of twenty U.S. higher-education institutions—split evenly between public and private—shows that critical web-accessibility barriers persist across both homepages and Disability Services pages. Although Disability Services pages generally exhibited fewer issues, neither page type consistently met WCAG 2.1 Level AA expectations. The most common problems involved color contrast and link/button semantics, alongside missing or incomplete alternative text—issues that reflect choices in brand tokens, component libraries, and day-to-day content authoring rather than isolated page defects. All observed differences are descriptive and not statistically inferred. Findings suggest that institutions often concentrate remediation within dedicated “disability” pages rather than applying inclusive design across sitewide templates and content workflows. This approach risks excluding users who encounter barriers before reaching those resources. Lasting progress requires more than technical standards; it depends on institutional governance and routine operational practices. Universities should (1) assign ownership and publish a campus accessibility policy and statement, (2) run scheduled automated scans and track fixes, (3) remediate templates first—especially color-contrast tokens and structural/navigation components—so improvements propagate site-wide, (4) equip content editors with brief training and pre-publish checks, (5) set service-level targets for remediation, (6) require accessibility assurances in procurement, and (7) provide a simple public dashboard on progress. Embedding these practices into design systems, CMS workflows, and purchasing decisions is the most reliable path to accessible, equitable digital experiences for all users. Declarations Availability of data and material The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank colleagues and peers who provided feedback on preliminary versions of this work. References ADA National Network. (n.d.). Digital access for students in higher education and the ADA [Research brief]. https://adata.org/research_brief/research-brief-digital-access-students-higher-education-and-ada Campoverde-Molina, M., Luján-Mora, S., & Valverde, L. (2023). Accessibility of university websites worldwide: A systematic literature review. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22 (1), 133-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00825-z CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines (Version 2.2). http://udlguidelines.cast.org Mack, K., McDonnell, E., Jain, D., Wang, L. L., Froehlich, J. E., & Findlater, L. (2021). What do we mean by “accessibility research”? A literature survey of accessibility papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04271 Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan Education. Patra, M. R., & Dash, A. R. (2017). Accessibility analysis of some Indian educational web portals. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07899 Scanlon, E., Taylor, Z. W., Raible, J., Bates, J., & Chini, J. J. (2021). Physics webpages create barriers to participation for people with disabilities: Five common web accessibility errors and possible solutions. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 , 25. https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-021-00282-3 Social Security Administration. (n.d.). ANDI: Accessible Name & Description Inspector (install page). https://www.ssa.gov/accessibility/andi/help/install.html U.S. Department of Justice. (2024, April 24). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; Accessibility of web information and services of state and local government entities (Final rule). Federal Register, 89 (80), 31320-31396. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.). IT accessibility laws and policies. Section508.gov. https://www.section508.gov/manage/laws-and-policies/ WebAIM. (2025). The WebAIM Million: The 2025 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages. https://webaim.org/projects/million/ Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7611216","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":514760480,"identity":"76dc733f-b758-4ea9-b7cd-2cffc6a624f3","order_by":0,"name":"Tolu Adedoja","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1507-1114","institution":"University of Utah","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tolu","middleName":"","lastName":"Adedoja","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-14 08:02:50","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7611216/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7611216/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91515903,"identity":"1f112e3e-c606-4717-b4c2-6eae3e5c0760","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:20:06","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":38974,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal accessibility alerts by module and institution type. Bars show totals for Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, and Color Contrast, split by public (blue) and private (red) institutions. Color Contrast dominates totals in both groups.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7611216/v1/6048392576ff5f88cbfbfafb.png"},{"id":91515904,"identity":"a00c9e90-f2bc-45e8-bde3-b48fdd5c76b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:20:06","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42077,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean accessibility alerts per page–module scan by module and institution type. Bars show per-scan means; public means are higher for Color Contrast, while Graphics/Images and Links/Buttons are comparable.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7611216/v1/3d6a5fc2ced4c581d8493176.png"},{"id":91515153,"identity":"4f2e2224-f691-4608-8de1-2603c78abd9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:12:06","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36133,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal accessibility alerts by page type and institution type. Bars compare Homepages versus Disability Services pages for public (blue) and private (red). Homepages consistently accumulate more alerts.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7611216/v1/bbab6c96c9b6f3d57074959a.png"},{"id":91515149,"identity":"2c447eac-ef6d-4784-99da-448fb5cb2800","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:12:06","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":52026,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal accessibility alerts by page type and module, separated by institution type. Modules are grouped within each page type; Color Contrast is the largest contributor on homepages, particularly at public institutions.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7611216/v1/32d76632e09cf481404876bc.png"},{"id":91517023,"identity":"ff5bea87-0bb0-4aa5-8966-03b213d7eccc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:28:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1068871,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7611216/v1/f3078bb2-e84c-43b3-ac22-a7901a25924b.pdf"},{"id":91515145,"identity":"04d8ab41-cf2a-4de6-99dd-5f1aac3624bc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:12:06","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15913,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7611216/v1/69413fd172aad8048ebd1777.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDigital Accessibility Gaps of U.S. Higher Education Websites: Insights from a Multi-Institution Automated Accessibility Audit\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEqual access to digital content is both a legal mandate and an ethical necessity for higher education institutions in the U.S. The Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s final Title II rule, published in the \u003cem\u003eFederal Register\u003c/em\u003e on April 24, 2024, mandates WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance for state and local government websites and mobile applications, with compliance deadlines of April 24, 2026 (for entities serving populations of 50,000+), and April 26, 2027, for smaller entities (U.S. Department of Justice, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In parallel, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability-based discrimination in federally funded programs, and Section 508 mandates accessible information and communication technology\u0026mdash;including websites\u0026mdash;for all federal institutions (U.S. General Services Administration, n.d.). Finally, a recent literature survey also maps trends and gaps in accessibility research across CHI and ASSETS proceedings from 1994\u0026ndash;2019, showing rapid growth in the field but a disproportionate focus on blindness/low vision (over ~\u0026thinsp;40% of papers in the past decade), frequent reliance on small participant samples (median\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;13), and underrepresentation of cognitive, learning, and mobility disabilities\u0026mdash;highlighting areas in need of broader methods and populations (Mack et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond legal compliance, disability studies frameworks emphasize that accessibility is a matter of equity and inclusion rather than mere technical conformance. The \u003cem\u003esocial model of disability\u003c/em\u003e frames barriers as products of inaccessible environments rather than individual impairments (Oliver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), while \u003cem\u003eUniversal Design for Learning\u003c/em\u003e (UDL) promotes proactive, inclusive design principles that benefit all users, not just those with disabilities (CAST, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These perspectives position digital accessibility as an integral component of educational quality and institutional responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, digital accessibility barriers persist in higher education. A research brief from the ADA National Network highlights that academic engagement with digital accessibility and disability inclusion remains limited, despite increasing demand for inclusive online learning environments (ADA National Network, n.d.). Globally, a systematic literature review of 42 studies reports widespread noncompliance with accessibility standards across university websites (Campoverde-Molina, Luj\u0026aacute;n-Mora, \u0026amp; Valverde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In the U.S., recent WebAIM \u003cem\u003eMillion\u003c/em\u003e reports consistently show that roughly 95\u0026ndash;96% of top homepages contain detectable WCAG failures, underscoring the breadth of the problem (WebAIM, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutomated accessibility audits using tools such as the Accessible Name \u0026amp; Description Inspector (ANDI) and WAVE can identify many detectable WCAG issues and support human evaluation (Social Security Administration, n.d.; WebAIM, n.d.). Prior research has also employed Tenon in audit workflows (e.g., Scanlon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, an evaluation of 139 U.S. physics-program webpages reported pervasive WCAG 2.0 errors\u0026mdash;only one page showed minimal accessibility errors\u0026mdash;with the most common problems involving non-text content, information/relationships, link purpose, resize text, and name/role/value (Scanlon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A similar audit of 30 Indian university portals likewise found widespread deficiencies relative to WCAG 2.0 and documented common violation patterns (Patra \u0026amp; Dash, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). However, few studies have examined both public and private U.S. universities in a consistent, reproducible manner, and even fewer have compared institution-wide homepages with targeted Disability Services pages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis distinction is important because homepages serve as the primary gateway for all users, while Disability Services pages are specifically intended to support disabled students and are often subject to greater accessibility scrutiny. By comparing these two page types, this study offers a unique lens on whether accessibility efforts are applied institution-wide or concentrated in designated \u0026ldquo;accessibility\u0026rdquo; sections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding on this foundation, our study conducted a structured, automated accessibility audit using ANDI across 20 U.S. universities (10 public, 10 private). We evaluated both homepages and Disability Services pages using four ANDI modules\u0026mdash;Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, and Color Contrast\u0026mdash;to assess WCAG, ADA, and Section 508 compliance. Our findings aim to provide a measurable benchmark for digital accessibility in higher education and inform targeted remediation efforts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAudit Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a cross-sectional automated accessibility audit guided by compliance benchmarks established under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 at Level AA. These standards collectively define key requirements for digital accessibility in higher education. The Accessible Name \u0026amp; Description Inspector (ANDI), a browser-based testing tool developed by the Social Security Administration, was selected for its ease of use, open-source availability, and ability to conduct quick, repeatable automated checks without requiring paid licenses. ANDI is widely recognized as an effective tool for identifying common accessibility issues that can be manually verified for accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eANDI Modules Used\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour core ANDI modules were selected for this audit to capture a broad range of accessibility dimensions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGraphics/Images \u0026ndash; Flags missing or incomplete alternative text (alt attributes), placeholder or suspicious alternative text, decorative images incorrectly marked, and the presence of images of text.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLinks/Buttons \u0026ndash; Detects ambiguous link text, missing accessible names, and issues with keyboard access or focus indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeadings \u0026ndash; Identifies skipped heading levels, empty headings, and other structural issues affecting page navigation and comprehension.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eColor Contrast \u0026ndash; Checks for insufficient contrast between text and background (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;4.5:1 for normal text and \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3:1 for large text) and flags cases where manual verification is recommended.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese modules were chosen because they align directly with critical WCAG 2.1 success criteria and provide a balanced view of both content-level and structural accessibility barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSample Selection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis audit was designed as an exploratory, descriptive baseline study to provide an initial snapshot of accessibility compliance in U.S. higher education. The sample consisted of 20 institutions \u0026mdash; 10 public universities and 10 private universities \u0026mdash; selected using a purposive sampling approach to ensure representation across multiple geographic regions and a mix of large and mid-sized enrollment levels. Inclusion criteria required that each institution maintain an active Disability Services webpage linked from its primary navigation or footer menu.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor each institution, two webpages were tested:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHomepage \u0026ndash; the primary entry point for the institution\u0026rsquo;s online presence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisability Services page \u0026ndash; a page specifically intended to provide information and resources for students with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor each page type, the four ANDI modules (Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, Color Contrast) were run, resulting in 8 audit entries per university. Across the 20 universities, this yielded a total of 160 audit entries (20 universities \u0026times; 2 pages \u0026times; 4 modules).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSampling detail\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe used purposive sampling to ensure variety in size and geography. \u0026ldquo;Large\u0026rdquo; institutions were operationalized as \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;25,000 total headcount and \u0026ldquo;mid-sized\u0026rdquo; as 8,000\u0026ndash;24,999, based on the most recent publicly reported enrollments (IPEDS categories). To balance geography, we targeted representation from the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, with at least one public and one private university in each region. The final sample met these targets (e.g., Northeast: 1 public/4 private; Midwest: 3 public/1 private; South: 3 public/3 private; West: 3 public/2 private). All candidate institutions met the inclusion criteria; no institutions were excluded for missing Disability Services pages, blocking automated testing, or undergoing redesign during the audit window.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTesting Procedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll evaluations were conducted on August 12, 2025, to ensure results reflected a consistent snapshot in time and were not influenced by ongoing content updates or design changes. Conducting the audit on a single day allowed for comparability across institutions but also means findings represent conditions at one specific point in time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAnonymization of Institutions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the 20 institutions sampled in this study are identifiable in the original dataset, they are not named in this paper to maintain focus on aggregate trends and systemic patterns rather than on institution-specific performance. This approach is consistent with ethical considerations in accessibility research, where the aim is to highlight broader compliance issues rather than publicly attribute noncompliance to individual institutions. The anonymized dataset and figure-generation scripts are available upon reasonable request; the full list of sampled institutions is also available to qualified researchers for replication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Extraction and Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor each webpage, the total number of elements scanned, total number of alerts, specific alert types, and descriptive notes were recorded directly from the ANDI output interface. Screenshots were taken for each module\u0026rsquo;s results to provide a visual record and facilitate later validation. Data were compiled into structured comma-separated values (CSV) files for public and private institutions, which were then merged into a combined dataset. Analysis focused on aggregated results, differences between public and private institutions, and contrasts between homepage and Disability Services pages. Analysis was descriptive in nature. No inferential statistical tests were conducted, and differences between groups are not interpreted as statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLimitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe small sample size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10 per group) and single-day snapshot limit the generalizability of the findings. Web content is dynamic and can change frequently, meaning results may differ at other points in time. As an exploratory baseline audit, this study is intended to identify potential accessibility concerns and patterns rather than to provide definitive or longitudinal conclusions. The sample was selected purposively to ensure a range of geographic regions and institutional types, but this approach does not provide statistical representativeness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe accessibility audit evaluated two webpage types \u0026mdash; the homepage and the Disability Services page \u0026mdash; for 20 U.S. higher education institutions (10 public, 10 private). Four ANDI modules were tested on each page type: Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, and Color Contrast \u0026mdash; resulting in 160 page\u0026ndash;module scans.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eOverall Patterns\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe most prevalent accessibility issues were detected in the Color Contrast module, followed by Links/Buttons. Issues related to Headings were comparatively rare, and Graphics/Images produced moderate alert counts. Across both public and private institutions, homepages consistently exhibited more accessibility alerts than Disability Services pages. The largest gap was observed in Color Contrast alerts, with public university homepages averaging 36.1 alerts per scan compared to just 9.9 alerts on private university Disability Services pages, indicating a more than threefold difference in magnitude.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo contextualize these magnitudes, external audits show similar patterns. WebAIM\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eMillion\u003c/em\u003e reports find that roughly 95\u0026ndash;96% of top homepages contain detectable WCAG failures, with low-contrast text and missing alternative text among the most common issues (WebAIM, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Prior higher-education audits likewise report widespread violations and frequent color-contrast and link/name problems (Scanlon et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Patra \u0026amp; Dash, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Because tools and scoring protocols differ, we treat our counts as directional rather than directly comparable one-to-one with those studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePrivate Institutions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor private universities, Color Contrast accounted for the highest number of alerts, particularly on homepages (284 alerts; average 28.4 alerts per scan). Links/Buttons followed closely, with 173 homepage alerts (average 17.3) and 65 alerts (average 6.5) on Disability Services pages. Graphics/Images yielded 87 homepage alerts (average 8.7) and 42 disability page alerts (average 4.2). Headings showed minimal issues, with only 12 homepage alerts (average 1.2) and 1 alert (average 0.1) on disability pages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePublic Institutions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic universities recorded the highest overall Color Contrast violations on homepages, with 361 total alerts (average 36.1). Links/Buttons presented the second-highest issue category, with 151 homepage alerts (average 15.1) and 121 alerts (average 12.1) on disability pages. Graphics/Images alerts were lower \u0026mdash; 53 homepage alerts (average 5.3) and 23 disability page alerts (average 2.3). Headings again showed fewer problems, with 14 homepage alerts (average 1.4) and 6 alerts (average 0.6) on disability pages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eComparative Trends\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHomepage vs. Disability Services Pages\u003c/strong\u003e: Both public and private institutions had more alerts on homepages than on Disability Services pages across all modules.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInstitution Type Differences\u003c/strong\u003e: Public institutions had more total Color Contrast and Links/Buttons alerts than private institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow Headings Alerts\u003c/strong\u003e: Across all scans, Headings consistently showed the fewest alerts, suggesting fewer structural hierarchy issues relative to other categories.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTargeted Accessibility Efforts\u003c/strong\u003e: Lower alert counts on Disability Services pages suggest that institutions may be applying accessibility practices more rigorously on these resource-specific pages compared to general entry pages.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifferences reported here are descriptive and should not be interpreted as statistically significant due to sample size constraints and the absence of inferential testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eOverall Accessibility Alert Findings\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcross the 20 universities sampled (10 public and 10 private), the automated ANDI audit identified a total of 1,626 accessibility alerts across all page types and modules. Public institutions accounted for 863 alerts (53.1 percent; mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.79 alerts per page\u0026ndash;module scan), while private institutions accounted for 763 alerts (46.9 percent; mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.54 alerts per page\u0026ndash;module scan). On average, each audited page\u0026ndash;module combination produced 10.79 alerts for public institutions and 9.54 alerts for private institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull counts and averages for all modules, institution types, and page types are available in Appendix Tables A1\u0026ndash;A5.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAlerts by Module\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen alerts were broken down by the four ANDI modules, Color Contrast generated the highest number of alerts in both groups. For public institutions, Color Contrast issues totaled 495 alerts (57.4 percent of all public alerts) with an average of 24.75 alerts per module scan. Private institutions recorded 383 Color Contrast alerts (50.2 percent of private alerts) with an average of 19.15 alerts per module scan. Total color contrast alerts for all institutions: 878 (54%).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLinks/Buttons was the second-most frequent issue category, with 272 alerts for public institutions (31.5 percent) and 238 alerts for private institutions (31.2 percent). Total links/buttons alerts for all institutions: 510 (31%).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGraphics/Images accounted for 76 public alerts (8.8 percent) and 129 private alerts (16.9 percent). Total graphics/images alerts for all institutions: 205 (13%).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeadings generated the fewest alerts, with 20 public alerts (2.3 percent) and 13 private alerts (1.7 percent). Total headings alerts for all institutions: 33 (2%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eTotal Alerts:\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic: 863 (53.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivate: 763 (46.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePage Type Observations\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhile this analysis aggregated results across both homepages and Disability Services pages, preliminary review of the dataset suggests that Color Contrast and Links/Buttons issues were prevalent on both page types, with only minor differences between them. Graphics/Images alerts were more variable, and Heading structure issues were relatively rare across both groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDifferences by Page Type\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen aggregated across all institutions, homepages demonstrated consistently more accessibility issues than Disability Services pages. Homepages averaged 14.19 alerts per module (total\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,135 alerts), compared to 6.14 alerts per module (total\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;491 alerts) for Disability Services pages. This suggests that, while institutions may prioritize accessibility on pages dedicated to disability resources, their main web portals remain less compliant with accessibility standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDifferences by Module\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcross all universities and page types, Color Contrast emerged as the most common source of accessibility issues, with a total of 878 alerts (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.95 alerts per module). This was followed by:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLinks/Buttons\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; 510 alerts (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraphics/Images\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; 205 alerts (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHeadings\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; 33 alerts (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.83)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe dominance of Color Contrast issues highlights ongoing challenges with WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.3 (Contrast Minimum) and 1.4.6 (Contrast Enhanced).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModule \u0026times; Page Type \u0026times; Institution Type Patterns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeveral notable patterns emerged from the cross-tabulation of results:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic University Homepages recorded the highest mean for any module\u0026ndash;page combination, with 36.1 Color Contrast alerts on average.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGraphics/Images issues were more prevalent on Private University Homepages (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.7) compared to Public (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.3).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLinks/Buttons issues were highest on Private Homepages (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.3) but were also substantial on Public Disability Services pages (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.1).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeadings issues were relatively infrequent but slightly higher on Public Homepages (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.4) than on Private (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.2).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, the automated accessibility audit revealed substantial gaps in compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards across both public and private institutions. While both groups exhibited similar patterns of recurring issues, private universities recorded slightly higher mean alert counts, particularly in the Graphics/Images and Links/Buttons modules. Across the sample, Disability Services pages consistently demonstrated fewer accessibility alerts than homepages, suggesting targeted efforts to make disability-related content more compliant. However, high alert frequencies in color contrast and missing or incomplete alternative text indicate persistent systemic barriers. These findings underscore the need for institution-wide accessibility strategies that extend beyond designated Disability Services pages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis multi-institution audit reveals persistent accessibility gaps across U.S. higher-education websites despite clear legal and technical standards (ADA, Section 508, WCAG 2.1 AA). Patterns in the data point most strongly to color contrast and link/button semantics—issues that typically originate in brand tokens (colors), component libraries, and authoring practices rather than in isolated pages. Disability Services pages tended to have fewer alerts than homepages, suggesting that institutions may concentrate remediation in resource-specific areas while leaving broader site templates and content workflows less governed. These findings underscore that sustainable accessibility depends on governance, design systems, and content operations, not just one-off fixes. All patterns reported are descriptive and should not be interpreted as statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAutomated tools like ANDI can produce false positives and do not cover all WCAG success criteria; some issues require manual verification. The audit reflects a single point in time, and websites change frequently; results could differ at another date. The sample (20 universities; 10 public/10 private) offers balance but not representativeness of all U.S. institutions. These constraints frame the study as an exploratory baseline; future work should expand the sample, include longitudinal scans, and combine automated with manual testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObserved differences between public and private institutions were modest. Private institutions showed slightly higher alert counts in Graphics/Images and Links/Buttons, which may reflect differences in brand/design choices, content volume, or CMS/editor practices. However, the persistence of alerts across both groups indicates that systemic factors—governance, design tokens, component quality, and training—are the primary drivers. Again, these differences are descriptive only.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eActionability of Alerts\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Several high-frequency alerts are highly actionable at the template level. Color-contrast failures can be reduced by updating brand color tokens/CSS variables once, propagating compliant contrast site-wide. Missing or ambiguous link names are typically content-authoring fixes (short guidance and pre-publish checks work well). Heading structure is best addressed in templates and component patterns. In contrast, certain ANDI “needs review” items (e.g., complex graphics or context-dependent alt text) require manual judgment and should be triaged after systemic template fixes. In practice, institutions should prioritize template-level fixes for color tokens and structure/landmarks before tackling content-specific issues that require manual review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo move from ad-hoc fixes to durable compliance, institutions can implement the following steps with clear owners, cadence, and metrics:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eName an owner and a working group (Weeks 0–4).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Appoint an Accessibility Program Owner and a cross-functional working group (IT, design, dev, content, procurement, Disability Services). Publish a campus Accessibility Policy (WCAG 2.1 AA, roadmap to 2.2) and a public Accessibility Statement with a feedback channel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eScan on a schedule (Quarterly at minimum).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Run automated audits on high-traffic templates (homepage, admissions, academics, financial aid, Disability Services) every quarter using ANDI/WAVE (and one additional engine if available). Track alerts per page–module, % pages with zero criticals, time-to-fix, and keep a versioned log.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eFix templates first (Months 1–2).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo \u003cstrong\u003eColor contrast:\u003c/strong\u003e Update brand color tokens/CSS variables once so compliant contrast propagates site-wide.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eo \u003cstrong\u003eStructure \u0026amp; navigation:\u003c/strong\u003e Enforce headings hierarchy, landmarks, focus order, and link-text patterns in shared components before page-by-page cleanup.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u003cstrong\u003eHarden authoring (Months 1–3).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Create a 2-page Authoring Style Guide (alt text, headings, link text, tables/PDFs). Provide a 60–90-minute editor training each term and add pre-publish checks in the CMS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5. \u003cstrong\u003eSet SLAs for remediation (Ongoing).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Triage by user impact and WCAG severity. Example SLAs: Critical = 2 weeks; Major = 30 days; Minor = next quarterly cycle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6. \u003cstrong\u003eProcurement controls (Immediate for new buys).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eRequire \u003cstrong\u003eVPAT/ACR\u003c/strong\u003e or WCAG conformance statements for all new products and include accessibility criteria in RFPs/contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7. \u003cstrong\u003eUser feedback \u0026amp; validation (Each semester).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Add a site-wide “Report an accessibility issue” link and conduct semesterly usability checks with students using assistive technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8. \u003cstrong\u003eTransparent reporting (Each term).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Publish a short dashboard: number of pages scanned, % passing templates, issues resolved, and upcoming milestones.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e90-day starter plan:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDays 0–30:\u003c/strong\u003e Appoint owner; publish policy/statement; baseline scans; begin color-token fixes.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDays 31–60:\u003c/strong\u003e Template remediation; authoring guide; editor training; set SLAs; add feedback link.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDays 61–90:\u003c/strong\u003e Re-scan; publish dashboard; integrate procurement checks; schedule next quarterly audit.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis exploratory baseline audit of twenty U.S. higher-education institutions—split evenly between public and private—shows that critical web-accessibility barriers persist across both homepages and Disability Services pages. Although Disability Services pages generally exhibited fewer issues, neither page type consistently met WCAG 2.1 Level AA expectations. The most common problems involved color contrast and link/button semantics, alongside missing or incomplete alternative text—issues that reflect choices in brand tokens, component libraries, and day-to-day content authoring rather than isolated page defects. All observed differences are descriptive and not statistically inferred.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings suggest that institutions often concentrate remediation within dedicated “disability” pages rather than applying inclusive design across sitewide templates and content workflows. This approach risks excluding users who encounter barriers before reaching those resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLasting progress requires more than technical standards; it depends on institutional governance and routine operational practices. Universities should (1) assign ownership and publish a campus accessibility policy and statement, (2) run scheduled automated scans and track fixes, (3) remediate templates first—especially color-contrast tokens and structural/navigation components—so improvements propagate site-wide, (4) equip content editors with brief training and pre-publish checks, (5) set service-level targets for remediation, (6) require accessibility assurances in procurement, and (7) provide a simple public dashboard on progress. Embedding these practices into design systems, CMS workflows, and purchasing decisions is the most reliable path to accessible, equitable digital experiences for all users.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and material\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe author would like to thank colleagues and peers who provided feedback on preliminary versions of this work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eADA National Network. (n.d.). Digital access for students in higher education and the ADA [Research brief]. https://adata.org/research_brief/research-brief-digital-access-students-higher-education-and-ada\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampoverde-Molina, M., Luj\u0026aacute;n-Mora, S., \u0026amp; Valverde, L. (2023). Accessibility of university websites worldwide: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eUniversal Access in the Information Society, 22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 133-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00825-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines (Version 2.2). http://udlguidelines.cast.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMack, K., McDonnell, E., Jain, D., Wang, L. L., Froehlich, J. E., \u0026amp; Findlater, L. (2021). What do we mean by \u0026ldquo;accessibility research\u0026rdquo;? A literature survey of accessibility papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. \u003cem\u003earXiv.\u003c/em\u003e https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04271\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOliver, M. (1990). \u003cem\u003eThe politics of disablement.\u003c/em\u003e Macmillan Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatra, M. R., \u0026amp; Dash, A. R. (2017). Accessibility analysis of some Indian educational web portals. \u003cem\u003earXiv.\u003c/em\u003e https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07899\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScanlon, E., Taylor, Z. W., Raible, J., Bates, J., \u0026amp; Chini, J. J. (2021). Physics webpages create barriers to participation for people with disabilities: Five common web accessibility errors and possible solutions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of STEM Education, 8\u003c/em\u003e, 25. https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-021-00282-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Security Administration. (n.d.). ANDI: Accessible Name \u0026amp; Description Inspector (install page). https://www.ssa.gov/accessibility/andi/help/install.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eU.S. Department of Justice. (2024, April 24). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; Accessibility of web information and services of state and local government entities (Final rule). \u003cem\u003eFederal Register, 89\u003c/em\u003e(80), 31320-31396. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eU.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.). IT accessibility laws and policies. \u003cem\u003eSection508.gov.\u003c/em\u003e https://www.section508.gov/manage/laws-and-policies/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebAIM. (2025). The WebAIM Million: The 2025 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages. https://webaim.org/projects/million/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"N/A","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"web accessibility, WCAG 2.1, ADA Title II, Section 508, higher education, automated accessibility audit, ANDI, color contrast","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7611216/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7611216/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackground:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires higher education institutions in the United States to ensure their digital resources meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. However, persistent accessibility barriers continue to limit equitable access.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eObjective:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the accessibility of higher education websites in the United States, focusing on compliance with ADA and Section 508 standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWebsites from 20 universities (10 public, 10 private) were audited. For each institution, the homepage and Disability Services page were evaluated using the Accessible Name \u0026amp; Description Inspector (ANDI) across four modules: Graphics/Images, Links/Buttons, Headings, and Color Contrast\u0026mdash;yielding 160 page\u0026ndash;module scans. Total elements scanned, total alerts, and alert types were recorded, with screenshots for reproducibility. An \u0026ldquo;alert\u0026rdquo; refers to any automated flag generated by ANDI indicating a potential accessibility violation under WCAG 2.1 AA criteria; alerts vary in magnitude and require manual verification to confirm actual noncompliance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross 160 page\u0026ndash;module scans, the audit identified 1,626 accessibility alerts, with Color Contrast accounting for 54% of all violations. Frequent issues included missing alternative text, link elements without accessible names, ambiguous link text, and numerous cases requiring manual color-contrast checks. Homepages generally exhibited more alerts than Disability Services pages, and public and private institutions showed broadly similar overall alert frequencies. All differences reported are descriptive and not the result of inferential statistical testing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusions:\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccessibility gaps remain prevalent in U.S. higher education websites, even on pages designed to serve disabled users. Regular automated audits using tools like ANDI\u0026mdash;combined with governance, template-level fixes, and content-authoring practices\u0026mdash;can help institutions identify and remediate issues, improving compliance and equitable digital access.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Digital Accessibility Gaps of U.S. Higher Education Websites: Insights from a Multi-Institution Automated Accessibility Audit","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-17 09:12:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7611216/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"fc7d4f4e-5c61-402b-bbaf-a5b4c9e6eae1","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-17T09:12:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-17 09:12:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7611216","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7611216","identity":"rs-7611216","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}