Skip to main content

Texas Tech University  ·  Digital Accessibility Committee

State of Digital Accessibility

An executive summary of Texas Tech University's compliance progress under the DOJ Title II WCAG 2.1 AA mandate.

📅 Prepared: April 2026 📬 Prepared for: Office of the Provost & Office of the President 📁 Submitted by: Digital Accessibility Committee

Introduction

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a final rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring all state and local governments, including public universities, to ensure their digital content conforms to WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 24, 2026. For Texas Tech University, this mandate reaches every corner of the institution: websites, learning platforms, digital documents, multimedia, mobile applications, and the third-party tools used to deliver services and information to students, faculty, staff, and the public.

In response, Texas Tech established a Digital Accessibility Committee, chaired by the Vice Provost for Texas Tech Online. Composed of representatives from TTU Online, Information Technology, University Libraries, Student Disability Services, Instructional Technology, Academic Affairs, Staff Senate, Marketing and Communications, and Compliance, the Committee set out to build an institutional accessibility program capable of meeting the deadline and sustaining compliance well beyond it.

This report documents the scope, scale, and outcomes of that effort. The sections that follow detail Texas Tech's progress across each major compliance domain: vendor and procurement reviews, website and web application remediation, course content accessibility, training and outreach, PDF remediation tool development, and campus communications. Together, these efforts demonstrate that the university has made meaningful, measurable progress toward a more accessible and inclusive digital environment, while also establishing the people, tools, processes, and infrastructure necessary to sustain continuous improvement.

1,640
Vendors Evaluated
100K+
Pages Monitored
+50.9
Point Gain — Texas Tech & Dept Sites (WCAG 2.1 AA, 12 months)
360
Web Applications Identified
16,689
Courses Available in RaiderCanvas
1,829
Training Participants
1,948
Instructional Hours Delivered
+552
New Silktide Users Since Jan 2025
1

Vendor & VPAT Analysis

Since this initiative launched in late September 2025, there has been significant progress in identifying and evaluating the extensive volume of software used across Texas Tech’s educational and research missions, much of which had not previously undergone formal vendor review or VPAT assessment. All purchases with a digital component now include the accessibility team in the purchasing workflow. The team conducts an assessment of each vendor considering the number and type of users, whether the product is used in a classroom or research setting, and other contextual factors to determine whether a VPAT is appropriate to request from the vendor.

 

When a VPAT aligned with WCAG 2.1 AA is provided, the team evaluates it using an internal scorecard that is also utilized by other Texas institutions. When a product does not pass due to significant compliance gaps, the team engages the vendor to request remediation of the platform. Vendors that provide a remediation roadmap or commit to delivering an updated VPAT may receive conditional approval, with the team conducting ongoing monitoring every 60 days. Full approval is granted when the VPAT meets the internal scorecard threshold, achieving an accessibility score of 90% or higher. Faculty-selected research tools intended for individual use are automatically approved, but VPATs are still collected and maintained on file for documentation and compliance purposes. Every vendor interaction — including VPAT analysis, communications between departments and procurement, and remediation meetings — is documented in a centralized tracking system, ensuring full audit readiness and the ability to retrieve any vendor record within seconds. As the vendor procurement process matures, the team will proactively evaluate vendors on behalf of faculty and staff and develop a curated library of accessible options, streamlining selection and improving purchasing efficiency across campus.

Vendors Evaluated by Month

VPAT processing launched in late September 2025, and prior to this initiative, VPATs were not formally assessed at Texas Tech. April 2025 figures reflect a mid-month reporting cutoff and are not yet complete.

Evaluation Summary

1,640
Total vendors evaluated
1,335
Approvals granted (81%)
163
Conditional approvals (10%)
12
Rejections (1%)

Exemptions

11
Exemption forms received
4
Individual exemptions approved
7
Exemptions in process
3
Blanket exemptions in effect
Blanket exemptions: Texas Tech has established three categories where full WCAG 2.1 AA conformance is not technically feasible without materially altering the nature of the product: Virtual Reality (VR), mapping and geographic information software, and 3D modeling software. Individual exemptions follow a separate review process. Departments using exempt software are still expected to address barriers that can be reasonably accommodated.
2

Websites & Web Applications

Public-facing website remediation, web application reviews, and global template work — monitored via Silktide, our university-sponsored solution that aggregates accessibility scores for each website.
3

Course Accessibility (RaiderCanvas)

Learning Management System (LMS) course content accessibility — monitored via YuJa Panorama and the Canvas Accessibility Checker

Across 16,689 courses available in RaiderCanvas, our core accessibility metrics have moved in the right direction since baseline monitoring began. The average course score is up, the median is up significantly, and the number of courses falling below Texas Tech's institutional minimum has been cut nearly in half. The data below captures the scale of that progress.

Course Accessibility Progress — Baseline vs. Current

BaselineStart of monitoring
86.29%
Average accessibility score
91.13%
Median accessibility score
2,035
Courses below institutional minimum
Current — April 2026 
88.53%
Average accessibility score
97.59%
Median accessibility score
1,094
Courses below institutional minimum
ImprovementChange since baseline
▲ +2.24 pts
Average score gain
▲ +6.46 pts
Median score gain
▼ −941 (−46%)
Fewer courses below minimum
The most significant gain is in institutional minimum compliance: courses falling below Texas Tech's standard dropped from 2,035 to 1,094 — a reduction of 941 courses (−46%) since monitoring began. The 6.46-point median improvement (91.13% → 97.59%) is especially notable: gains in the median indicate the middle of the distribution is shifting upward, meaning improvement is reaching typical courses, not just outliers at the top of the scale.
4

Training & Testing

Campus training program, individualized consultations, accessibility testing tool deployment, and platform adoption
5

PDF Remediation Tool

Application Development initiative to address Texas Tech's ~500,000 PDF remediation backlog at institutional scale

Initiative Overview

PDFs represent one of the largest and most persistent accessibility challenges across Texas Tech; spanning course content, administrative documents, and web-embedded resources. Texas Tech must remediate over 500,000 PDFs to meet DOJ Title II requirements. The PDF Remediation Tool is a custom application developed by the IT Application Development team to address this backlog at institutional scale, delivering a scalable and automated solution for producing accessibility-compliant PDFs with consistent quality.

Through disciplined planning and testing, the team identified a solution that will save the university hundreds of thousands of dollars compared to earlier alternatives while delivering a more robust, fully functional tool capable of growing with Texas Tech's needs over time.

A strategic choice for the long term: The pivot to the new solution offered a more capable, cost-effective, and sustainable tool for the entire campus community; one built to serve Texas Tech for years, not just to clear the immediate compliance backlog.

PDF Remediation Tool 

42%
Production build complete as of April 2026
July 2026
Target go-live date
~500K
PDFs requiring remediation across Texas Tech
 
February 5, 2026
Production Project Initiated
PDFix selected as production platform. Project scoped for full campus deployment with processor-based licensing to ensure predictable cost and scalable throughput.
 
March 6, 2026
AI Server Build
AI Server build with SSL configuration started.
 
March 13, 2026
AI Server Global Config & File Storage
AI Server global level 1 config and SSL completed. File storage build initiated.
 
March 27, 2026
Database & Full Disk Encryption
Full Disk Encryption requested. Database build started.
 
April 3, 2026
Front-End Development
Queue and Front-End development underway.
 
July 10, 2026 (Target)
Go-Live & Campus Deployment
Planned completion of PDFix API build, testing and validation, documentation, training, go-live, and project closure. Full campus access to the remediation tool.
6

Digital Accessibility Website & Campus Communications

Resource hub analytics and campus-wide outreach efforts
Looking Ahead

Priorities for Continued Progress

The April 24, 2026 deadline marks a compliance threshold, not a finish line. The work documented in this report reflects a strong institutional foundation — but accessibility is dynamic. Sustaining what has been achieved and closing remaining gaps will require ongoing attention across all program areas.

🔄Sustaining Compliance — Preventing Regression
🌐
Web content is not static. Sites can degrade as content is added or updated by editors lacking accessibility training. Sustaining scores requires persistent training for new hires, new web editors, and new faculty.
📚
Courses change every semester. Course content is rebuilt and revised continuously. Ongoing instructor support, accessible content creation training, and periodic monitoring are required.
🔎
Silktide decisions require audit and review. Some platform decisions made by site editors during the compliance push need review to ensure genuine remediation rather than workarounds inflating reported scores without improving actual accessibility.
📐
Template gains must be protected. The fixes driving the 50.9-point Texas Tech/departmental website improvement must be documented and sustained. Future template changes must be evaluated for accessibility impact before deployment.
📋Vendor & VPAT Program — Scaling and Evolving
📦
A significant backlog remains. Ongoing renewals, new acquisitions, and department-initiated reviews create a persistent queue. Active prioritization is needed to prevent procurement delays.
🔬
Proactive accessible tool identification is currently unstaffed. There is currently no dedicated person responsible for proactively researching and vetting accessible tools prior to procurement. This gap represents a weakness in the institution’s accessibility workflow and often results in reactive, time-intensive reviews. Establishing a staff role focused on identifying, evaluating, and maintaining a curated inventory of accessible tools would streamline procurement, support earlier decision-making, and reduce the risk of adopting technologies that require costly remediation.
🔍
Some vendors still do not supply compliant VPATs. Obtaining current WCAG 2.1 AA-level documentation from smaller software providers and niche research tools remains a challenge requiring dedicated follow-up capacity.
🤖
AI tools require a new evaluation framework. The rapid expansion of AI-powered software introduces a category where accessibility conformance documentation is often absent or non-standardized. Establishing a consistent approach is an urgent emerging priority.
📁
The exemption process must scale. As individual exemption requests increase, clear timelines, consistent criteria, and sufficient staffing are needed to handle volume without creating compliance gaps.
🌐External Sites — Closing the 25-Point Gap
📣
Outreach to external site owners must be intensified. Texas Tech's external/non-CMS affiliated sites showed less improvement over 12 months. These site owners are subject to the same DOJ Title II obligations and need targeted outreach, guidance, and support.
📊
Monitoring must continue. Without ongoing Silktide monitoring and periodic review, the status of external sites will remain unknown. A cadence for outreach tied to scan data is essential for closing the compliance gap over time.
📄PDF Remediation — Scaling the Solution
📁
PDFs represent the largest remaining remediation volume. Across course content, administrative documents, and web resources, the backlog is substantial. The enhanced PDF Remediation Tool in development is the primary strategy for addressing this at institutional scale.
🎓Training — Expanding Reach and Filling Gaps
👥
Under-contacted populations remain. Identifying departments and units not yet engaged, and developing targeted outreach strategies, is a priority for the next program phase.
📱
Asynchronous formats need expansion. Additional delivery channels beyond the current website and email should be explored to reach those who cannot attend live sessions or prefer self-paced learning.
🔬
STEM-specific training is a known gap. Faculty and instructional designers working with mathematical notation, scientific figures, and technical diagrams need targeted guidance. This curriculum track is in development.
🎬
Video description guidance is incomplete. Instruction on creating audio descriptions for visual content in video has not yet been fully developed and will be addressed in the next training cycle.
🔗
Integration with campus onboarding is an opportunity. Embedding training resources within Canvas, ServiceNow, HR onboarding, and department intranets would expand reach organically rather than relying solely on users navigating to the accessibility site directly.
🌍Digital Accessibility Website — Visibility and Curation
🔍
Site discoverability must grow. Many campus users may not know the Digital Accessibility site exists. Increasing inbound links from training portals, department sites, and HR materials would expand reach to populations not yet engaged.
📚
Content currency requires ongoing curation. Training materials and guidance pages must be actively maintained. As tools, standards, and workflows evolve, outdated content creates confusion and can propagate practices no longer aligned with current requirements. A formal content review cycle is needed.
Jul 7, 2026