#accessibility.chat

Editorial Methodology

AI-assisted accessibility research, with sources and 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.

Review Gates

Our pipeline is designed to catch the failures that make AI content untrustworthy: vague sourcing, overconfident legal claims, fake lived experience, and generic advice.

  1. 1Source check: claims should point back to reliable public sources or be clearly labeled as analysis.
  2. 2Article quality review: the piece must add reader value beyond summarizing a source, with a clear thesis, concrete evidence, practical takeaway, and stated limits.
  3. 3Accessibility values review: content should center disabled users and avoid treating compliance as a paperwork exercise.
  4. 4Technical review: WCAG, ADA, Section 508, PDF, and web terminology should be precise and practical.
  5. 5Risk review: legal and compliance statements should be qualified and avoid pretending to be legal advice.
  6. 6Copy review: articles should be readable, skimmable, and free of invented quotes, fake experience, and unsupported certainty.
  7. 7Link and correction review: external references should be useful, and readers should have a clear way to flag problems.

Article Quality Standard

A good accessibility.chat article should do more than summarize a link. It should help a reader understand what changed, why it matters, what evidence supports the analysis, and what a responsible next step looks like.

Specific thesis

The article should make a clear, defensible point rather than restating that accessibility matters.

Evidence density

The article should use concrete facts, standards, source details, or observed findings instead of generic advice.

Reader usefulness

A practitioner should leave with a next step, diagnostic question, checklist item, or risk distinction they can use.

Plain limits

Legal, technical, and audit conclusions should explain what the source proves and what still requires project-specific review.

AI Analyst Lenses

The named analysts on this site are AI research lenses, not human staff members. They help vary article focus across community impact, operational implementation, legal risk, and strategy. We use them as editorial tools so readers can understand the angle of a piece without confusing that angle for a credentialed human byline.

View the AI analyst lenses

Corrections and Reader Challenges

If you see a source problem, inaccessible interaction, technical error, outdated legal reference, or overbroad claim, send the article URL and the issue you spotted. We will review and correct material problems.

theaccessibilitychat@gmail.com