When an institution audits your platform for accessibility compliance, the rich text editor is where many of the findings originate. The editor controls what HTML gets generated, how content is structured, and whether instructors can create accessible materials in the first place.
If your editor produces inaccessible output, every piece of content created through it inherits that problem. This article covers five specific gaps that VPs of Product and Engineering need to address, along with the compliance and business implications of each.
Key Takeaways
- Most editors fail ATAG’s requirement to help authors create accessible content, generating non-semantic HTML that blocks students with disabilities.
- The five most common editor-related accessibility failures in institutional audits: missing semantic headings, images without alt text prompts, tables without header markup, unrestricted color contrast, and keyboard navigation issues.
- Fixing these five gaps unlocks contracts with state universities, federal agencies, and K-12 districts that eliminate platforms with VPAT gaps before feature comparisons even begin.
The Compliance Landscape for EdTech
Educational institutions in the United States must comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for federally funded programs and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act for state and local government entities. As of 2024, the Department of Justice requires state and local government websites to conform with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
For EdTech vendors, this means institutional buyers increasingly require accessibility documentation during procurement. The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) has become a standard part of RFP responses, and platforms that fall short get eliminated before the feature comparison even begins.
The rich text editor is one of the most scrutinized components because it’s an authoring tool. The W3C’s Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 specifically addresses the requirement that authoring tools both be accessible to use and help authors create accessible content.
Gap 1: Missing or Non-Semantic Heading Structure
Many editors let instructors change font size and apply bold formatting, but they generate <span style=”font-size:24px”> instead of proper <h2> tags. The visual result looks the same, but the underlying HTML is completely different for assistive technology.
Screen readers use heading tags to build a navigation outline of the page. WebAIM’s Screen Reader User Survey #10 found that 71.6% of respondents use headings as their primary method for navigating lengthy web pages, and 88.8% find heading levels very or somewhat useful. When headings are just large, bold text, that navigation disappears.
The fix is an editor that generates semantic heading markup and presents heading levels as the primary text formatting option instead of arbitrary font sizes. If your editor’s toolbar has a font size dropdown but no heading level selector, this gap exists in your platform.
Gap 2: Images Inserted Without Alt Text Prompts
When an instructor drags an image into the editor, what happens? If the editor silently inserts the image with an empty alt attribute (or worse, sets the filename as alt text), every one of those images becomes an accessibility barrier.
WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.1.1 requires that all non-text content has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose. For educational content, this is especially critical. A chemistry diagram, a historical photograph, a data visualization, all carry meaning that students relying on screen readers need access to.
Your editor should prompt the instructor to enter alt text during image insertion, not as an optional field buried in an image properties dialog. The best editors make alt text a visible, required part of the insertion workflow, reducing the chance that it gets skipped.
Gap 3: Tables Without Proper Header Markup
Instructors use tables constantly. Grade breakdowns, assignment schedules, comparison charts, rubric criteria. When these tables lack <th> header cells, scope attributes, and <caption> elements, screen readers can only present the data as a flat sequence of cells with no context.
WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.3.1 requires that information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation are programmatically determinable. For tables, this means the relationship between header cells and data cells must be explicit in the markup.
Check how your current editor generates table HTML. Insert a simple two-column table with a header row, then inspect the output. If the first row uses <td> tags instead of <th> tags, your editor is creating inaccessible tables by default.
The WebAIM WCAG 2 Checklist provides a practical reference for validating table accessibility alongside other criteria.
Gap 4: Insufficient Color Contrast in Editor-Generated Content
Some editors include text color and background color pickers that let instructors choose any combination. When an instructor sets light gray text on a white background, or yellow text on a light green background, the resulting content fails WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.4.3, which requires a minimum 4.5:1 contrast ratio for normal text.
The challenge is that restricting color choices frustrates instructors, but allowing unrestricted choices leads to inaccessible content. The middle ground is an editor that includes a contrast checker within the color picker, showing instructors whether their chosen combination meets the minimum ratio before they apply it.
If your editor offers color controls, test whether it provides any contrast guidance. Most editors give instructors a full color spectrum with zero accessibility feedback, which effectively delegates compliance responsibility to users who may not understand the requirements.
Gap 5: Keyboard Navigation Gaps in the Editor Interface
The editor itself must be fully operable by keyboard. This maps to WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 2.1.1. If an instructor with a motor disability uses a keyboard or switch device instead of a mouse, every editor function must be reachable.
Common failures include toolbar buttons that can only be activated by mouse click, dropdown menus that trap keyboard focus, dialog boxes (like image upload or link insertion) that lack proper tab order, and missing visible focus indicators on interactive elements.
Test this yourself. Put your mouse in a drawer and try to create a formatted lesson using only the keyboard. Navigate to every toolbar button. Open and close every dialog. Insert an image, add a link, create a table. If you get stuck at any point, your keyboard-dependent users are stuck too.
An editor built with keyboard navigation, WAI-ARIA bindings, and Section 508 compliance as core design requirements handles these interactions correctly from the start, rather than patching them in later.
The Business Case Beyond Compliance
Accessibility compliance opens doors to the largest institutional buyers in the market. State university systems, federal agencies, and K-12 districts with strict procurement requirements represent significant contract value. When your VPAT shows gaps in editor accessibility, you’re eliminated from these opportunities.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, approximately 21% of undergraduate students reported having a disability in recent survey data. That’s a substantial portion of your end users. An accessible editor serves all of them better.
Fixing these five gaps requires choosing an editor that treats accessibility as a core capability rather than a compliance checkbox. Audit your current editor against each gap listed here, document the findings, and include editor accessibility as a line item in your next product roadmap.
The cost of remediation increases the longer you wait. The longer inaccessible content accumulates in your platform, the larger the cleanup effort becomes. Start with the editor, and every piece of content created after the fix inherits better accessibility by default.
