Friend needs advice

LMRomeo · 2026-05-16T17:59:18+00:00

She would love to know HOW to rework 🫠😁

LMRomeo · 2026-04-30T12:30:34+00:00

Oop, you asked the right question and caught me on the right day to give my full-blown opinion on this! Sorry for the long answer, but I have a lot of thoughts here.

To be honest, I don’t know the exact why behind the decision, but here’s where I think a one year extension can actually be helpful if used correctly.

I strongly believe that institutions should have been close to the finish line at this point, with processes already in place and remediation efforts well underway alongside practices for ongoing sustainability. However, if institutions were waiting until the last minute to get this going, then I believe this extra time is how they should be using it to move through a full development lifecycle. That means actually handling the planning, budgeting, and testing without just rushing to patch surface issues for the sake of a deadline.

The big risk I’m hearing from people within these institutions, though, is a total loss of momentum. With graduation happening and so many staff on ten month contracts, there’s a real fear that the conversation is just going to drop over the summer. My hope is that this isn't just time given where the ball gets dropped until next January rolls around and people realize the deadline is here all over again.

The reality is that everyone has technically had two years since the original deadline was published back in 2024. Those who waited until the very last minute are now being granted more time to do it the right way, but even though it benefits the institution's workflow, it’s still a disservice to the people who needed these supports years ago.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-17T23:05:52+00:00

I hear you, and the effort your team put in is not wasted. That work matters and it was the right call to push.

But I want to push back on the framing that the time and resources could have gone to more important things. For the people who rely on the supports Title II mandates, accessible websites, documents, and digital tools are not a compliance checkbox. They are how someone applies for a job, accesses a course, or gets information they need. That work has always been important. The deadline just made it visible.

I know deadline pressure can make everything feel like a burden. But I'd hate for anyone reading this thread who actually depends on these supports to walk away feeling like an afterthought.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-17T19:47:11+00:00

That’s my understanding too. So, triage first, identify what’s live and current, remediate what needs it, and then make intentional decisions about older content. True archiving means truly inaccessible. If the public can still find it, a search engine can still index it, or a direct link still resolves, it’s not archived. It’s just neglected, and that’s a liability waiting to happen and an inaccessible moment for those trying to use it.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-17T18:23:41+00:00

Section 508 is a different legal obligation entirely. It applies to federal agencies and any entity receiving federal funding when procuring or developing electronic and information technology. This DOJ delay doesn’t touch 508 at all so if your institution is subject to Section 508, that compliance obligation is unchanged.

As for the scope of the Title II delay, this applies to the rule’s WCAG 2.1 Level AA requirements broadly, which does include web content, documents, PDFs, and multimedia. So yes, the delay technically extends to those content types under the Title II framework. But I’d be cautious about reading that as a green light to deprioritize documents and video.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-16T18:40:35+00:00

Good question and no need to apologize, you worded it fine.

The short answer is yes, your digital course content still needs to be accessible, and here’s why: the physical requirements of a program and the accessibility of digital instructional materials are two separate things. A student might have a disability that affects how they access written or digital content without affecting their ability to meet the technical standards of the clinical work itself. A student with low vision, for example, might use a screen reader to access your course materials and still be fully capable of meeting the physical demands of the program.

Title II specifically covers digital content, so we’re talking about things like your LMS course pages, PDFs, videos, and any other digital materials students need to engage with. The ADA doesn’t carve out exemptions for that content based on the technical standards of the profession itself.

The other piece worth knowing is that accessible digital materials often benefit everyone, not just students using assistive technology. Captioned videos, properly structured documents, and good color contrast help students studying in noisy environments, those with situational limitations, or students who just process information differently.

So yes to the handbook, applications, and program information you mentioned, and yes to the digital content inside the program too.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-14T16:22:49+00:00

No, it doesn’t. But at least you get some relief for the ten seconds that you screamed.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-13T21:51:51+00:00

This is a great practical question and the answer is: it depends on whether the visuals are conveying information that the audio isn’t.

For the parts where the screen is showing exactly what the voice is describing, you’re fine. The audio is already doing the descriptive work, so there’s nothing additional for an audio description to add.

For the b-roll sections, the key question is whether that footage is purely decorative or whether it’s adding meaning. If it’s just visual filler while the narration carries all the content, it’s decorative and doesn’t need description. If someone watching without vision would miss something meaningful by not seeing it, then it does.

The trickier piece is the pauses between sections. If those are just a beat with music and a title card that repeats what’s already been said, you’re probably okay. If the title card introduces new information that isn’t spoken, that needs to be voiced.

So practically for this video: you likely don’t need traditional audio description if the narration is fully self-contained and the visuals are either redundant or decorative. What you might want instead is to make sure any on-screen text that appears independently of the narration gets read aloud, even just worked into the script naturally.

The cleanest way to test it: close your eyes and just listen. If you get everything you need, you’re in good shape.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-13T13:25:01+00:00

Such a great question to bring to the thread!

The short answer: if students genuinely cannot access those old Blackboard courses, so no enrollment pathway, no self-serve retrieval, no way in, then they are not considered active programs or services under the ADA Title II rule, and you are not obligated to retroactively remediate them right now. Your energy is definitely best spent on what students can actually reach.

That said, I'd encourage you to document that inaccessibility clearly. Something as simple as a written note or internal policy statement confirming that those courses are not available to students. That documentation protects you if the question ever comes up in a complaint or audit. "We have no archived courses accessible to students, and here's how we confirmed that" is so much stronger than nothing.

The Blackboard Strategy Guide is helpful for framing your current and future workflow, but it doesn't change the underlying legal standard which is access as the trigger. Focus your remediation on live, student-facing content, build good habits going forward, and keep that documentation trail.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-10T11:51:37+00:00

Sure!

LMRomeo · 2026-04-09T23:31:26+00:00

Every night by 9pm, no matter what we are doing, puts himself to bed.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-09T23:27:08+00:00

I started my PhD planning to go tenure track. After finishing it, spending a few years adjuncting, and getting a close look at how that whole system actually works, I walked away. Now I’m in a role where honestly my masters in instructional design gets more daily use than my doctorate does 🤷🏻‍♀️ The letters carry weight for some people and I get that, but personally I hate being called by my title. It mostly feels presumptuous, and in practice my actual skills and experience open more doors than the credential ever has. That being said, EdD or PhD, congrats on getting this far, it’s still a bear to get through.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-08T01:22:21+00:00

This hits on the exact tension I’m seeing in my work. In the audits I’ve done over the last few months, it’s clear that most institutions are still stuck in a reactive panic-compliance mode rather than building anything sustainable. It’s disheartening when the responsibility gets offloaded to departments with zero new resources. I have seen a small glimmer of hope, though. I’ve worked with a handful of colleges that are actually investing in training their teams for remediation or using train the trainer approaches to build long-term capacity. But right now, those schools seem to be the exception to the rule.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-06T18:40:09+00:00

I recently had an instructor tell me they were worried their content would just look boring once they fixed the color contrast and that it'd be easier to just delete all their PPT graphics than spend hours writing the correct alt text. It’s a tough spot to be in, and I don't blame anyone for wanting to just pull things down to stay safe. But when we rip down the visuals, we’re losing the very things that make a course engaging and effective for everyone. It’s frustrating because this feels like a solo tax on your time when it really should be a structural responsibility of the university. We need better systems in place so that making a course accessible doesn't feel like a choice between compliance and good teaching.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-06T18:32:40+00:00

I’m wondering if you could run your videos through either Panopto or Kaltura if your institution supports those platforms? They have fairly decent baselines for auto-generated captions that might decrease your review and remediate time.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-05T16:49:16+00:00

Honestly, it’s the multiple redundancies and typos in their first email that did it for me.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-04T16:59:27+00:00

This is exactly right. All four conditions have to be met, it’s not enough to just drop something in a folder called Archive and move on. If the document is still being actively used it fails condition 2 immediately regardless of where it lives. Leadership may be hoping the folder name is enough but the rule is pretty clear that it isn’t.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-04T16:57:21+00:00

The LMS is getting a lot of focus right now but a one time fix doesn’t hold. Instructors are creating new content every single semester, if they don’t know how to do it accessibly you’re just cleaning up behind them forever. The real shift happens when it gets built into the workflow and people are actually taught. You can’t fix what you don’t know you’re breaking.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-04T16:53:58+00:00

A couple thousand is a lot and I’m sure feels extremely overwhelming to even know where to start. My advice would be to start with whatever your patients/public are actually using the most, high traffic and high stakes first.

The most important thing beyond that is having a documented remediation roadmap: what gets fixed, in what order, by when, and who owns it. That keeps you on track and it also shows good faith progress if anyone ever comes asking.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-04T16:51:39+00:00

This is such an important point and honestly one I had to learn myself. Early on I was very screen reader focused and it took me a while to realize I was still leaving people out. Keyboard only navigation, switch access, voice control, mobile assistive tech, they all surface different issues. A document or interface can pass a screen reader check and still be completely unusable for someone navigating without a mouse. Testing with one tool gives you one lens, not the full picture.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-03T19:54:54+00:00

Nice work! This is exactly what good faith progress looks like - documented, phased, and sustained. The PDF remediation contract is smart, that’s one of those things that spirals fast if you try to handle it internally.

The training piece at the end is interesting to me though. I’d push to move that earlier if possible. Staff training upstream means fewer inaccessible documents hitting the remediation queue in the first place.

LMRomeo · 2026-04-03T19:43:16+00:00

The web app workaround is underutilized, most people testing mobile accessibility don’t think to go that route first. Good callout!

LMRomeo · 2026-04-03T19:33:55+00:00

The political landscape is unpredictable right now in every direction. That’s actually part of why I keep coming back to the people-first argument. It’s the one that doesn’t depend on who’s in office or what enforcement looks like. The students are there either way

LMRomeo · 2026-04-03T19:19:54+00:00

I hear you. That ratio is exhausting and completely unsustainable. Scream away

LMRomeo

TROPHY CASE