Source Standards & Editorial Accountability
accessibility.chat uses AI to accelerate research and draft analysis, but trust comes from clear sourcing, careful review, corrections, and plain limits on what our content can claim.
What AI Does
AI helps summarize sources, draft explainers, compare issues against the CORS framework, and turn accessibility findings into practical language.
What Review Does
Review checks sourcing, terminology, reader usefulness, accessibility values, and whether claims are appropriately limited.
What Readers Should Know
Articles are research and education, not legal advice. Important compliance decisions still need project-specific review.
Source Standards
We give more weight to primary sources than commentary.
When a piece discusses legal obligations, technical requirements, or enforcement risk, the article should make it possible for readers to inspect the underlying source.
Primary sources
DOJ announcements, ADA.gov guidance, W3C WCAG materials, Section508.gov, court records, settlement documents, agency rulemaking, and standards documentation.
Technical references
Authoritative implementation guidance, accessibility test examples, browser or assistive technology behavior notes, and documented accessibility patterns.
Secondary reporting
Accessibility news, vendor analysis, blogs, and commentary are used as context, not as final authority for legal or technical claims.
Editorial Review Checklist
Every published analysis must pass through these seven review checks.
claims should point back to reliable public sources or be clearly labeled as analysis.
the piece must add reader value beyond summarizing a source, with a clear thesis, concrete evidence, practical takeaway, and stated limits.
content should center disabled users and avoid treating compliance as a paperwork exercise.
WCAG, ADA, Section 508, PDF, and web terminology should be precise and practical.
legal and compliance statements should be qualified and avoid pretending to be legal advice.
articles should be readable, skimmable, and free of invented quotes, fake experience, and unsupported certainty.
external references should be useful, and readers should have a clear way to flag problems.
Corrections Policy
We update content quickly when errors are identified. Factual corrections, legal updates, and source additions are updated in place with clear revision notes.
If you find a factual error, broken source link, or misapplied WCAG criterion, please email our editorial team.
Report a Correction