Practical guidance for government and higher-education teams preparing for the April 2026 deadline
As April 2026 approaches, we’re seeing more and more government agencies and colleges take accessibility seriously — and that’s something we genuinely appreciate. Accessibility has never been just a checkbox or a deadline for at AndiSites. It’s about making sure people can actually use the services and information they rely on, no matter what.
We work with public-sector websites every day, and one thing is clear: most accessibility issues don’t happen because teams don’t care. They happen because accessibility is complex, standards evolve, and it’s easy to make reasonable choices — including relying heavily on automated tools — that don’t quite lead to full, real-world accessibility. If you’re reading this, you’re already asking the right questions, and that’s exactly where meaningful accessibility work begins.
Here are some of the most common accessibility mistakes we see — and how to avoid them.
Mistake #1: Treating Accessibility as a One-Time Project
It’s tempting to think of accessibility as something you can “complete.” Run a scan, fix the issues, check the box.
In reality, accessibility is ongoing. Websites change, content gets added, and systems evolve — which means accessibility needs attention over time, not just once.
What helps instead:
Building accessibility into your regular maintenance and governance processes so it doesn’t fall behind between updates.
Accessibility works best when it’s part of the process — not a last-minute fix.
Mistake #2: Expecting Automated Tools to Catch Everything
Automated accessibility scanning tools like Siteimprove, AudioEye, and even our beloved Equalize Digital Accessibility Checker for WordPress are an important part of any accessibility program. They’re excellent at identifying many common issues — like missing alt attributes, color contrast problems, and certain structural code errors — and they allow teams to establish a baseline quickly and monitor changes over time.
However, automated tools can’t evaluate everything. Depending on how coverage is measured, most automated scanners typically identify only about 20–40% of accessibility issues, leaving the remaining issues — often the most impactful ones — to be discovered through human review and assistive-technology testing.
Examples of issues automation can’t reliably assess include:
- Whether alternative text is meaningful in context
- Logical reading and focus order
- Keyboard usability across complex components
- Clarity of instructions and error messaging
What helps instead:
Using automated scanning as a strong foundation, then pairing it with manual accessibility audits and real-world testing to uncover the issues tools alone can’t see.
Automated tools are a powerful first step — but accessibility doesn’t happen at the push of a button.
Mistake #3: Getting an Audit Without a Plan to Fix What It Finds
Accessibility audits can provide valuable insight — but without a remediation plan, those findings can feel overwhelming and stall progress.
What helps instead:
Planning for remediation based on audit results, prioritizing issues by impact, and breaking work into manageable phases that align with internal resources and timelines.
Finding issues is only useful if there’s a clear path to fixing them.
Mistake #4: Addressing Accessibility Only at the End of a Project
When accessibility is reviewed only after design and development are complete, teams often face rework, delays, and frustration.
What helps instead:
Considering accessibility during design, development, and content creation — when fixes are simpler, faster, and more cost-effective.
Mistake #5: Believing in a Quick or “Instant” Accessibility Fix
Some organizations consider overlay tools such as UserWay, WordPress “make your site accessible” plugins, or similar products that are marketed as “fast” solutions — especially when deadlines are approaching. While these tools can help provide a more accessible experience, they unfortunately don’t address the underlying issues required for WCAG compliance — and in some cases, they can introduce new barriers.
What helps instead:
Fixing accessibility issues directly in your code and content, supported by tools — not replaced by them.
True accessibility happens in the code, not on top of it.
Mistake #6: Overlooking Mobile Experiences and Digital Documents
Accessibility applies to more than desktop web pages. Mobile experiences, PDFs, forms, and other digital documents are often essential to accessing public services — and they’re commonly overlooked.
What helps instead:
Including mobile and document accessibility in audits and remediation efforts, with special attention to the content people rely on most.
Mistake #7: Working with Web Agencies That Don’t Fully Understand Accessibility
Many web agencies do excellent design and development work — but accessibility requires specialized knowledge and consistent integration. When accessibility is treated as an add-on or outsourced late in the process, it often becomes fragmented and reactive.
What helps instead:
Partnering with teams who integrate accessibility throughout design, development, testing, and QA — not just at the end. Bonus points if the team has a web accessibility expert in-house.
Accessibility shouldn’t be bolted on. It should be built in.
Mistake #8: Skipping Real Assistive Technology Testing
Automated checks can’t replicate real-world use. Issues that appear minor in reports can create significant barriers for people using assistive technologies.
What helps instead:
Start with automated testing to make improvements, but augment with human-based testing using screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, and realistic user tasks to ensure fixes actually work for real users.
Mistake #9: Leaving Content Teams Out of the Accessibility Effort
Even after remediation, accessibility issues can reappear if content creators aren’t part of the process. Most issues aren’t intentional — they’re the result of unclear guidance or missing guardrails.
What helps instead:
Training content teams, providing simple checklists, and embedding accessibility into everyday publishing workflows.
Mistake #10: Waiting Until There’s a Complaint or Deadline Panic
When accessibility only gets attention after a problem arises, teams are forced into reactive mode — often under pressure.
What helps instead:
Proactive monitoring, steady progress, and documenting efforts along the way.
The goal isn’t perfection overnight — it’s consistent, defensible progress.
How AndiSites Helps You Avoid These Mistakes
At AndiSites, we help public institutions move forward with accessibility in a way that’s practical, sustainable, and aligned with real-world constraints.
We support teams through:
- Automated scanning paired with manual accessibility audits
- Clear, prioritized remediation guidance
- Hands-on remediation support when needed
- Assistive technology validation testing
- Ongoing monitoring, process integration, and training
Most importantly, we partner with you — so accessibility becomes part of how your organization works, not something you scramble to address at the end.
Let’s Talk About Where You Are — and What Comes Next
If any of these mistakes feel familiar, you’re not alone. They’re common — and fixable.
If you’d like help assessing your current state or planning next steps toward the April 2026 deadline, we’d love to help! Contact AndiSites today to start a conversation about accessibility scanning, remediation, and ongoing support. We’re here for you!