WCAG 2.1 AA Audit: ADA Title II, EAA, 508

Flags accessibility failures in the open file, cites the exact WCAG success criterion and EN 301 549 clause, and tells you which standard version and deadline actually bind you.

Get the complete version $29

This page is the working piece. The full pack has everything below.

Flags accessibility failures in the open file, cites the exact WCAG success criterion and EN 301 549 clause, and tells you which standard version and deadline actually bind you.

A one-off professional WCAG audit runs about $1,250-$2,750 for a typical site, and a procurement-grade VPAT/ACR starts around $350 and reaches $3,000-$15,000 for government procurement.

Buy the full version — $29
Want the full version?
Enter your email and we send the download link.
ENDEJAESPT

Find a tool

· ReadyStack

Worked example

Real numbers from this tool, line by line.

WCAG 2.1 AA Audit: ADA Title II, EAA, 508

Six lines of ordinary HTML fail WCAG 2.1 Level AA, and if you build for a US city, county or school district, one of those six is not actually your problem. That distinction is the whole job, and almost no tooling makes it.

Here is the part most teams have wrong. On 17 April 2026 the US Department of Justice issued an interim final rule moving the ADA Title II web accessibility deadlines back by one year. Public entities serving 50,000 or more now have until 26 April 2027. Smaller entities and special districts have until 26 April 2028. The technical standard did not change: it is still WCAG 2.1 Level AA. But every guide, wiki page and chatbot answer written before that April date still quotes 24 April 2026, and teams are planning sprints around a date that no longer exists.

The second thing teams get wrong is the version. These three regimes do not cite the same one:

So take one line:

<input name="email" placeholder="Email">

Under ADA Title II that trips two criteria: SC 4.1.2, because with no id and no aria-label it can never be given an accessible name, and SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose, because a personal-data field carries no autocomplete token. Under Section 508, only the first one counts. SC 1.3.5 was added in WCAG 2.1 and Section 508 never adopted it. A federal team running a scanner set to WCAG 2.2 gets handed a backlog it is under no legal obligation to clear.

That is what this extension does. It audits the file you have open, cites every finding to its exact success criterion and the matching EN 301 549 clause, then splits the list into what your regime requires and what it does not - and shows the date you are working towards, counted from today. Twenty-three checks ship inside, all line-scoped regular expressions.

It is deliberately not an axe replacement. axe, Lighthouse and eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y detect far more than twenty-three patterns and you should keep running them. They also cannot see tags split across lines, and neither can this. What they will not tell you is which of their findings you are legally required to fix, or when. That answer is worth more than another hundred rules.

15 seconds — what it actually does

Questions people ask

What does this extension actually do?

It scans the file you have open and flags accessibility failures line by line. Every finding names the exact WCAG success criterion and the matching EN 301 549 clause, and marks which regimes it is in scope for. It then resolves your jurisdiction to the standard version and compliance date that legally bind you, so you fix what is required rather than everything a generic scanner reports.

Who is this for?

Front-end and full-stack developers at agencies, SaaS teams and public-sector vendors who ship web interfaces to EU consumers under the European Accessibility Act, or to US state and local government buyers under ADA Title II, or to federal buyers under Section 508. It is written for the person editing the markup, not for the compliance officer.

Why not just use axe, Lighthouse or eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y?

Those tools detect more than this one does, and you should keep using them. What none of them do is tell you which standard version binds you. They report against WCAG 2.2 by default, yet Section 508 still cites WCAG 2.0 AA and ADA Title II cites WCAG 2.1 AA. So they flag criteria you are not legally required to meet.

What is free and what needs a licence key?

Free covers one file completely: all rules run, every finding is cited, and the jurisdiction, standard version and deadline are resolved. Nothing is watermarked, timed or locked after N runs. The licence key covers a different job: scanning the whole workspace, exporting the conformance report file, emitting CI JSON, and re-auditing on every save.

What would this cost me otherwise?

A one-off professional WCAG audit runs roughly $1,250 to $2,750 for a typical site, and far more for large ones. A procurement-grade VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report starts around $350 and reaches $3,000 to $15,000 when it is written for government procurement. This extension is $29 once, and it does not replace that audit - it stops you paying for findings you could have fixed first.

Ask about this tool

One question, answered by the person who built it. Your email only if you want the answer sent.

Same job, next tool

Free in the browser. The full version is a one-time licence, 7-day refund.

WCAG 2.1 AA Legal Baseline Audit for templates$29ADA Title II Deadline Lint (WCAG 2.1 AA)$29EN 301 549 Lint — European Accessibility Act rules, with the clause number, in$29ADA Compliance Plugin for WordPress: Title II Grievance Form$60Web UI Kit for SaaS Dashboards — 8 Components, 32 Variant States (Figma plugin$168Build 6 Procreate Lettering Brushes That Feel Like Ink — The Exact-Settings Wo$39