Section 508
Revised Section 508 (ICT Refresh) for federal agencies and contractors. Every Supports / Partially / Does Not Support claim is mapped to the underlying success criterion and backed by evidence.
Methodology
Accessibility Testing Methodology
Testing by DHS Trusted Tester credentialed evaluators for Section 508, WCAG 2.2, VPAT/ACR, and ADA Title II readiness. Every claim mapped to a success criterion. Every finding backed by evidence.
Methodology overview
Rigorous, evidence-based, and procurement-defensible.
Every evaluation is performed by a DHS Trusted Tester credentialed evaluator using the DHS Section 508 Trusted Tester process and mapped to the standards public-sector reviewers actually cite. Engagements are founder-led from scoping through delivery. Automated tooling is used only as a floor — manual expert review, keyboard operability testing, screen-reader checks, and document accessibility review form the deliverable.
Standards mapped
Section 508, WCAG 2.2, VPAT/ACR, ADA Title II readiness.
WCAG 2.2
WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA — the current standard cited in federal, state, local, and higher-education accessibility policies, and incorporated by reference in ADA Title II.
VPAT / ACR
VPAT 2.5 Rev 508, Rev EU (EN 301 549), and Rev INT (WCAG) preparation, review, and OpenACR YAML twins for procurement-grade machine-readable conformance.
ADA Title II Readiness
DOJ Title II digital accessibility rule readiness for state and local government and higher education — inventory, baseline, and roadmap to the April 2026 / 2027 compliance dates.
Testing inputs
What we test against.
We define scope around the artifacts a reviewer can audit: user flows, page templates, documents, forms, and applications — sampled to be representative of the in-scope ICT.
- Critical user flows (apply, register, transact, search, contact)
- Page templates and design-system components
- Electronic documents (PDF, Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
- Forms, validation, and error-handling patterns
- Web, SaaS, and mobile applications
- Representative samples across in-scope ICT
Testing approach
How we evaluate conformance.
Manual expert review
Code-level inspection of semantics, ARIA, focus order, heading structure, and link purpose by a credentialed evaluator of record.
Automated scan support
axe-core, Lighthouse, and Pa11y across in-scope pages — used as a floor, never as the deliverable.
Keyboard & screen reader
Keyboard-only navigation and screen reader checks with NVDA + Firefox, JAWS + Chrome, and VoiceOver + Safari.
Color contrast & reflow
WCAG color-contrast review, 200% / 400% zoom, reflow, and reduced-motion checks across the responsive range.
Forms & error handling
Label and instruction association, error identification, suggestion, prevention, and recovery patterns evaluated end-to-end.
Document accessibility
PDF/UA, Section 508, and WCAG 2.2 AA review of tagged PDFs, Word, and Excel — including reading order, alt text, and form fields.
Findings model
What every finding includes.
Severity
Critical / Major / Minor — calibrated to user impact and procurement risk, not just count.
WCAG criterion
Each finding is mapped to the specific success criterion (e.g., 1.3.1, 2.4.7, 4.1.2).
User impact
Plain-language description of who is affected and how — assistive-tech users, keyboard users, low-vision, cognitive.
Remediation recommendation
Concrete fix guidance with code patterns, ARIA usage, or content / structural change — not just a citation.
Validation status
Open / Fixed / Verified — tracked through retest, with evidence captured on closure.
Deliverables
What you receive.
- Issue log mapped to WCAG success criteria with severity and remediation guidance
- Executive summary for program leadership, COR/COTRs, and Section 508 program offices
- Remediation roadmap sequenced by severity and user impact
- VPAT / ACR preparation and review, with OpenACR YAML twin on request
- Retest results and validation memo on closure
Defensible documentation for the people who get audited too.
If your COR, OIG reviewer, or program office asks how a claim was reached, the answer is in the file — the success criterion, the evidence, and the evaluator of record who signed it.