I have a client who is dealing with a formal complaint about ADA compliance, and as part of the team that worked on their website, I’d like to ask:
I’m based in the Philippines, so I lack practical knowledge of US laws related to the ADA. Any advice would be very helpful.
Yes, I’ve encountered several situations where clients received formal complaints about ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance—it’s increasingly common, especially for U.S.-facing websites. Even if you’re based in the Philippines, like I am, working with U.S. clients means understanding and implementing ADA-aligned accessibility is crucial both legally and ethically.
To assess compliance, I follow a structured process using both automated tools and manual testing. Tools like Wally have been incredibly helpful. Wally provides reliable automated accessibility audits aligned with WCAG 2.1 AA, which is the core standard often referenced in ADA-related cases. It identifies key issues like contrast errors, missing labels, and improper semantics, making it easier to flag risks early and present clients with actionable insights backed by data. I complement this with manual testing—using screen readers like NVDA or VoiceOver, keyboard-only navigation, and real-world usability checks.
My workflow typically starts with Wally to run an initial scan and generate a clear, client-friendly report. From there, I prioritize issues by severity and user impact, collaborate with the dev team for remediation, and re-test until the site is accessible and defensible. What sets Wally apart is that it not only detects problems but also helps educate stakeholders—providing the clarity that’s often missing when explaining why accessibility matters.
Accessibility is not just a legal requirement; it’s a commitment to inclusion. Tools like Wally empower teams to meet that commitment without burning out.