WCAG 2.2vsUS ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H)
See exactly how WCAG 2.2 controls map to US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
WCAG 2.2 maps to US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) with 5% coverage across 5 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 97 WCAG 2.2 controls identifies 92 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Principle 2 Operable: Guideline 2.4 Navigable – WCAG 2.2.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 97 controls analysed | 1,113 frameworks | 315K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 11 of 11 control mappings across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 315K+ mappings across 1,113 frameworks.
Conformance requirements and conformance claims – WCAG 2.2(11 mappings)
A WCAG 2.2 to US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) controls your existing WCAG 2.2 work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 5% in the header counts how many WCAG 2.2 controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other WCAG 2.2 comparisons
Other US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 1,113 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 1,113 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (315K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between WCAG 2.2 and US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H)?
WCAG 2.2 has 97 controls across its framework, while US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) covers 13 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 5 overlapping controls (5% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Principle 2 Operable: Guideline 2.4 Navigable – WCAG 2.2, where 13 WCAG 2.2 controls have no direct US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) equivalent.
How many controls map between WCAG 2.2 and US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H)?
Of 97 total WCAG 2.2 controls, 5 map directly to US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H) controls, representing 5% coverage. The remaining 92 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping WCAG 2.2 to US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H)?
92 WCAG 2.2 controls have no direct equivalent in US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H). The highest concentration of gaps is in Principle 2 Operable: Guideline 2.4 Navigable – WCAG 2.2 with 13 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between WCAG 2.2 and US ADA Title II - Web and Mobile App Accessibility Rule (28 CFR Part 35 Subpart H)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Principle 2 Operable: Guideline 2.4 Navigable – WCAG 2.2 (13 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are judged interpretations, grounded in the source text of both frameworks, and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.