Sample case study: Sample Water District
This shows what you receive from an audit: the findings, the board memo and who owns each fix.
“Sample Water District” is fictional. This case study uses a purpose-built demonstration website seeded with common problems found on small public-sector sites. It does not describe any real district, city or client, and it contains no real results or testimonials.
The site
Sample Water District is a fictional district serving about 4,000 connections. Its small website has a home page, news, board agendas and minutes as PDFs, a contact form, an online bill-pay link run by a payment vendor, and a page of water quality reports. As a special district, its compliance date under the DOJ ADA Title II rule is April 26, 2028.
What we tested
- 8 page templates and 3 key tasks: paying a bill, finding the next board agenda and sending a message to staff
- A sample of 10 PDF documents (agendas, minutes and a water quality report)
- Standard: WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with WCAG 2.2 items noted as recommendations
What we found (sample)
| Finding | WCAG criterion | Who it affects | Fix owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| The “Pay my bill” button could not be reached or activated with a keyboard. | 2.1.1 Keyboard | People who can’t use a mouse, including many screen reader users | Web vendor |
| Board agendas were posted as scanned images with no text, so screen readers read nothing. | 1.1.1 Non-text Content; 1.3.1 Info and Relationships | Blind and low-vision residents | District staff |
| Contact form fields had placeholder text but no labels, and errors were shown only in red. | 1.3.1; 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions; 1.4.1 Use of Color | Screen reader users and people with color blindness | Web vendor |
| Light gray text on a white background in the footer and news dates. | 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) | Low-vision residents and anyone reading in sunlight | Web vendor |
| The service area map was an image with no text alternative. | 1.1.1 Non-text Content | Blind residents | District staff |
| An overlay toolbar was installed, but it did not fix any of the issues above. | Not a WCAG criterion | Everyone; it gave a false sense of coverage | District decision |
Before and after
A real report measures results before and after fixes: automated issues found, WCAG 2.1 AA criteria failed, key tasks completed by keyboard alone, and sample PDFs readable by a screen reader.
Excerpt from the board memo (sample)
“Our website does not yet meet the WCAG 2.1 AA standard required by April 26, 2028. Most issues are fixable by our web vendor within its normal service, and we recommend asking for those fixes now. Staff should start posting agendas as text-based documents created from Word, rather than scanned images. With these steps, the District can be ready well before the deadline.”
Sample text for a fictional district.