The Truth About Accessibility: Why Quick Fix Tools Aren’t a Compliance Strategy

By Sean Wyse - Jan 22, 2026

Across the public sector, the pressure to meet accessibility deadlines is intensifying and fast. With deadlines for ADA Title II regulations and WCAG 2.1 AA requirements looming, municipalities are scrambling for solutions. Unfortunately, in that scramble, many are being sold “quick fixes” that promise instant compliance, zero effort, and no code changes.

If that sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Over the past year, we’ve watched an uptick in overlays and automation‑heavy products that attempt to re‑render a website or document to look accessible without making the underlying content accessible. These tools often cheat the scanners, passing automated tests while still failing real users.

Local accessibility organizations and consultants echo the same concerns: these solutions create the illusion of accessibility, not genuine equal access. And that distinction matters, ethically, legally, and operationally.

Below is what government entities need to know before relying on any single automated tool, including PDF‑to‑HTML products, as their primary accessibility strategy.

1. ADA Title II Requires Accessible Content — Not Just an Accessible Alternative

Under ADA Title II, public entities are responsible for ensuring that the content itself is accessible. Regulators are clear:

If you can fix the document, you are expected to fix the document.

Alternate versions, such as an HTML rendition of a PDF, are permitted only in rare and limited circumstances. They should not be used as a standard workflow. These alternatives are appropriate only when it is not technically feasible (for example, with a complex interactive map) or legally possible (such as a password‑protected document) to make the original content accessible.

Why this matters:

  • Tools typically leave the original PDF unchanged and inaccessible.
  • The alternate version exists in parallel,not in place of the official document.
  • Courts and regulatory bodies may view this as noncompliance when remediation is feasible.

Put simply: alternate versions don’t eliminate liability. They may even highlight a problem rather than solve it.

2. Alternate Formats Often Create Unequal Access

Compliance isn’t just about availability — it’s about equal access.

Tools that generate alternate HTML versions of PDFs create real‑world risks:

  • Many users never notice the accessible version link.
  • Alternate versions may strip out:
    • official formatting
    • page numbers
    • legal notices
    • tables and graphics
    • signatures
  • Staff update the original PDF and forget to update the alternate HTML, creating mismatched information.

The result is a two‑tier experience:

  • Sighted users get the official document.
  • People using assistive technology get something different — often incomplete or outdated.

That disparity violates the core intent of ADA Title II’s non-discrimination requirements.

3. Automation Cannot Interpret Meaning, Intent, or Legal Context

Automated accessibility tools cannot reliably determine:

  • Correct heading hierarchy
  • Accurate alt text for data‑rich visuals
  • Logical reading order
  • Instructions and context for forms
  • What content carries procedural or legal significance

For government content, this isn’t just a usability issue, it’s a legal risk.

Public notices, zoning maps, procurement documents, ordinances, and benefits forms often require specificity and nuance that only human review can ensure.

Automation isn’t the enemy; it’s just not enough on its own.

4. “Accessible Output” Does Not Equal Document Compliance

Some solutions claim that if a screen reader can read it, it’s accessible. This is misleading.

WCAG and ADA Title II require:

  • semantic structure
  • programmatic relationships
  • predictable navigation
  • compatibility with assistive technologies
  • accurate tagging
  • readable, meaningful alt text

If the source PDF:

  • has no tags
  • uses images of text
  • has broken reading order
  • includes inaccessible forms

…then the agency is still out of compliance, even if an HTML version is offered elsewhere.

5. Regulators and Lawsuits Focus on Process, Not One‑Time Fixes

Accessibility compliance is evaluated as an ongoing programmatic responsibility, not a snapshot.

DOJ investigators and plaintiffs are looking for:

  • accessible publishing workflows
  • source‑level document remediation
  • staff training
  • governance and policy
  • sustained accessibility over time

A tool that produces alternate versions does not demonstrate any of the above. It may help as part of a strategy, but it cannot be the strategy.

Lawsuits will follow shortcuts. Agencies hoping that passing a scan protects them are going to be disappointed.

So Where Do These Tools Fit?

These tools can be useful as accelerators, as triage utilities, as part of a broader workflow but only when paired with:

  • true source remediation
  • accessible document templates
  • trained staff
  • governance
  • testing by humans and assistive technology users

They are supplements, not solutions.

Accessibility is ultimately about equal access, not minimum effort. Municipalities that invest in long‑term, sustainable practices — not shortcuts — will be the ones meeting compliance, reducing risk, and serving their communities effectively.

If you want to avoid quick fixes and build a compliant, defensible accessibility program, we can help. Talk to our team or access our self‑guided resources to learn how to remediate content the right way.

Back to News Search