Blog post authors: Heather Owen, Joe Edgerton

On June 26th, 2026, RDAP’s Digitally Accessible Data and Data Repositories Working Group released a report on how the new U.S. ADA Title II rulings could impact data and data repositories, and summarized accessibility standards and best practices for datasets and repository platforms. The report is freely available and contains three subsections: how the new ADA Title II requirements apply to data and repositories; guidance for making repository platforms accessible; and recommendations for making datasets accessible. It provides a practical explanation and introduction to the policy change, guidance on compliance for repository managers, and instruction on how to make various types of data more accessible.

What Are the New U.S. ADA Title II Rulings?

On April 24, 2024, the Department of Justice issued a new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II ruling that impacts the accessibility of web content at public institutions. In this ruling, state and local governments have deadlines for conforming their public-facing web content to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 standard. This includes libraries that are part of local governments or state universities. In addition, a new final rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services will similarly require conformance to the WCAG 2.1 standard for entities receiving HHS funds, including Medicare and Medicaid funding, which includes many libraries that are part of hospitals or medical schools.

The Working Group

Consisting of RDAP members with a breath of experiences across academic research institutions, hospital systems, and both institutional and generalist data repositories from the US and beyond, the working group spent a year researching, convening, writing, and editing to create a report that is meant to help support the work of research data information professionals in making data more accessible. 

The group formed three sub-groups (ADA review, repositories, and data formats), to think about what practical guidance to give academic library repositories and others. After drafting an initial version of the report, the working group sent out the document for feedback from a selection of excellent and patient reviewers with expertise and lived experience in accessibility. 

What are the key takeaways from the report?

To us, one of the biggest takeaways is that there is a level of uncertainty when it comes to navigating the new WCAG 2.1 requirements. However, even if it’s not completely clear to libraries what exact content is required to change, there are plenty of progressive steps that libraries and institutions can take to make their data files and repositories more accessible. 

Our first recommendation is to have a discussion with legal counsel at your own institution. Data repository accessibility considerations alter depending on whether the repository is developed in-house, institutionally hosted, or vendor hosted, but there are many things that can be done to try to make the repository more accessible. It is important to develop an accessibility policy, execute an accessibility assessment on the repository, and implement the decided upon remediation strategies. 

Similarly, when it comes to accessible data, the ability to make one’s data accessible differs greatly according to the type of data. However, many strategies exist to increase the accessibility of one’s data, as is documented in the report, and including these strategies in instruction sessions, curation workflows, and in official repository guidance materials is essential. 

We recommend striving towards a workflow where data is accessible upon being shared in the repository, instead of requiring remediation afterwards. Planning and organizing information is something libraries do really well, and we hope our report will help data professionals rise to the challenge. 

How do you think this increased focus towards accessibility will impact our profession? 

We will see the increased focus towards accessibility impact our profession in numerous ways. 

One, the report touches on accessibility of file formats which has not always been the focus of information professionals. For a long time, the promotion of file formats has centered on longevity and interoperability between systems, but sometimes these file format types are not the ones which are most accessible. This conundrum may change the workflow process of repositories and researchers, especially as we pivot to data which is accessible when shared and is not remediated later. 

Two, for some data formats, such as spreadsheets, accessibility considerations may align with previous initiatives and can strengthen those points. When we talk about “tidy” data for a spreadsheet, we are actually making a dataset more accessible at the same time. Framing accessibility not as a burden, but as another perspective in making research materials more transparent will be useful in communicating about accessibility.

We think the emphasis on accessibility is coming at a good time. Open data is increasingly becoming an expected part of research processes, and data open to the public correlates well with data which is accessible to everyone. Developing checklists and guides (like this report), promoting accessibility during consultations, and teaching researchers and scholars that accessibility is an important piece of the research process will all help move data and repositories into the broader movement of transparency and openness.

While institutions are compelled to adjust their information resources, this work has been going on behind-the-scenes for decades. Accessibility didn’t just become recognized, but now it has policy weight that will help motivate everyone to come together and create a more accessible future for all.

Why did you join this group and what did you learn?

Heather

I joined this group as it was a topic I was particularly interested in. I had just finished a working group project for the DCN focused on creating a primer for OpenRefine, and I enjoyed the experience of doing a long-term project with professionals at other institutions, so I was excited to join a different working group. While I had some experience giving instructional sessions on accessible data visualizations, I was newer to working with accessible data and repositories. I thought it would be a wonderful learning opportunity, and I did learn a lot. I would definitely recommend participating in a working group if the topic is of interest to you, and RDAP is a wonderful community to participate in.

Joe

I remember joining this group soon after I started my library school program. I was new to research data management and I wanted to learn more about this profession, so after signing up for RDAP I decided to join a working group. Specifically, I joined the Digitally Accessible Data and Data Repositories Working Group because I felt like accessibility was a topic that I didn’t know much about but felt it was important to know as I prepared to enter the library workforce. After more than a year of being in the group I’ve been exposed to everything from issues raised in federal policy, tools used in accessibility work, and how different standards, like WCAG, operate on a basic level. Overall, I appreciated my RDAP experience a lot. I am looking forward to contributing more to the RDAP community in the future.

Report Contributors

The working group members who drafted, edited, and finalized the report:
Emily Blumenthal
Lena Bohman
Carrie Breton
Kristin Briney
Cameron Cook
Will Dean
Joseph Edgerton
Christine Nieman Hislop
Danielle Kirsch
Clara Llebot Lorente
Wendy Mann
Michal McCullough
Heather Charlotte Owen
Peyton Tvrdy
Sarah Weirich
Rachel Woodbrook