Does your website builder make your site ADA compliant?

Accessibility features are not the same as verified accessibility

A CMS can offer heading controls, alternative-text fields and accessible components. Authors still need to choose meaningful headings and descriptions. A supported component can be configured incorrectly, and an embedded third-party service can introduce a barrier outside the template.

Treat provider evidence as a starting point. Ask which version, configuration, pages and tasks it covers, when it was tested, and which known limitations remain. A platform assessment and an evaluation of your published website answer different questions.

Assign repairs to the right owner

Responsibility for delivery is shared operationally; legal responsibility depends on the applicable law and agreements. Do not assume your host controls every document, integration or publishing decision. This is educational guidance, not legal advice.

• Platform and agency: component behavior, templates, navigation and supported configuration.
• Content owners: headings, link purposes, meaningful image alternatives and publishing practices.
• Document and media publishers: source files, PDF structure, reading order, captions and meaningful alternatives.
• Service and integration owners: forms, error recovery, payments, authentication and third-party widgets.
• Organization: ownership, acceptance criteria, repair follow-through and a way for visitors to report barriers.

Verify complete tasks, not just the homepage

Use automated checks to find supported rule failures across a defined sample. Then test representative journeys with keyboard and assistive technology, including errors and confirmation states. Inspect document reading order and the meaning of alternatives manually. An empty automated finding list does not prove successful task completion.

For a school this may include enrollment and a current application PDF; for local government, a permit request; for a business, booking or purchasing. Record the tested URLs, date, states, method and exclusions. Do not describe untested login-protected or external steps as passed.

Turn independent evidence into a constructive handoff

Give the repair owner the affected URL, captured element, finding, reproduction steps and expected behavior. Group repeated template problems without discarding their occurrence list. Ask who will implement the change and who will verify it.

ADAReporting offers a free preview of up to three public pages, broader bounded reports and scheduled monitoring options. These provide independent automated evidence, not a legal opinion, accreditation or complete manual audit. Share the report with your provider and combine it with human evaluation of important tasks.

What scheduled monitoring can—and cannot—tell you

New documents, template releases and third-party updates can change accessibility after launch. Retest after material changes and use scheduled scans to identify detected differences. Periodic scans cannot guarantee that every barrier is caught between runs.

Choose monitoring scope and frequency based on service importance and publishing patterns. Keep unresolved manual checks visible, retain before-and-after evidence and provide a clear alternative contact route for people who encounter a barrier.

My provider says accessibility is included. Do I still need independent testing?

Independent testing can complement your provider’s accessibility work. First review the provider’s evidence and coverage, then evaluate the configured live site, your own content and complete workflows. Avoid purchasing duplicate work without understanding the gap.

Whether any particular legal requirement applies depends on the organization, service and jurisdiction. Neither a vendor statement nor an ADAReporting automated scan establishes legal compliance. Use qualified advice for legal questions and appropriate manual testing for usability questions.