Editorial, sources and corrections policy

Sources and scope

We use primary government, court, and W3C/WAI sources, distinguishing legal requirements from guidance and proposed changes. We identify the relevant jurisdiction and base product descriptions on documented behavior and test evidence. Secondary commentary provides context, rather than replacing the controlling source.

Legal applicability depends on the organization and the facts. We do not claim every website has the same legal duties, that automated tools detect every barrier, or that a passing scan certifies ADA compliance.

Authorship and review

ADAReporting is the organizational author and publisher of the current guides. That credit does not imply independent expert review. A named reviewer credit identifies the person’s role and the scope they actually reviewed, with their agreement to the credit. Automated validation alone is not a human screen-reader review.

Legal or current-event analysis is presented as reviewed only after subject-matter review. Reviewed articles identify publication, source-check and review dates, the relevant jurisdiction, and the scope of review. A planned review date is not evidence of a completed review.

Facts, interpretation and practical action

We distinguish facts from our analysis and suggested next steps, and explain relevant uncertainty and exceptions. Links to official sources let you consult the original text. Educational guidance is not individualized legal advice.

Corrections and freshness

Our correction standard is a dated explanation of what changed and why when an error materially affects the content. A change in a scanner, classification or crawl scope is not automatically a change in a customer’s website. We retain evidence needed to explain that distinction and do not silently redate articles to make them appear newly published.

Our review targets are monthly for legal and product guidance and quarterly for evergreen technical material, with additional review when a relevant source or release changes. Check each page’s review date; these targets do not imply automatic or continuous legal monitoring.

Customer case studies and research

We obtain appropriate permission before publishing customer names, quotations, reports, screenshots, or findings. Private report delivery, including a corrected report, is not permission for a public case study.

Our case-study standard includes the scan date, product version, domains and exclusions, automated results, manual work, and any repairs the customer implemented. Before-and-after claims require comparable testing scope and documented repairs. A scanner change, revised classification, or change in the URL inventory alone does not demonstrate that a website improved. Until those conditions are met, we use sample reports rather than publish named customer outcomes.

Our research standard includes disclosure of sampling methods, dates, scanner version, the totals used to calculate results, exclusions, and privacy protections. Automated findings alone do not establish the prevalence of legal violations.

Useful without purchase

Our guides are available without purchase. Product links offer optional next steps for testing, reporting, or monitoring. We distinguish planned tools from functionality that is available now.