A typical credit union website fails the same five or six WCAG criteria as nearly every other credit union website. The pattern is so consistent it's worth understanding why — and why the fixes are usually faster than the audits make them sound.
Why the pattern is so consistent
Most credit union websites are built on one of a handful of CUSO (credit union service organization) or core-processor templates: Jack Henry Symitry/Vibes, Fiserv DNA, OnApproach, dotCMS-based stacks from CU-focused agencies (BloomCU, MarketEdge, ePolicy). These templates carry forward template-level accessibility issues to every CU using them.
That's bad in that one template's flaw replicates across hundreds of CU sites. It's good in that fixing the template fixes everyone at once — and pressuring vendors collectively works better than pressuring them individually.
The five universal failures
1. Color contrast on rate tables
Rate tables (savings rates, loan rates, CD rates) are typically rendered with thin gray text on white backgrounds for "fine print" effect. The thin-gray pattern almost always fails WCAG 1.4.3 (4.5:1 contrast ratio).
Fix: change the gray to a darker shade. #666 on white is 5.7:1 (passes). #999 on white is 2.8:1 (fails). One CSS variable change typically fixes hundreds of pages.
2. Focus indicator removed
Custom CSS that removes the default focus outline (outline: none or *:focus { outline: 0; }) without providing a replacement. Failure of WCAG 2.4.7.
Fix: replace with a custom focus indicator (outline: 2px solid #yourBrandColor or box-shadow: 0 0 0 2px ...). Apply globally; CU site UX is rarely so distinctive that it justifies removing the focus indicator anywhere.
3. Form fields without labels on the contact / branch finder
The "find a branch" or "contact us" form often has placeholder-only inputs ("Search by ZIP" placeholder, no <label>). Failure of WCAG 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2.
Fix: add a <label for="zip">ZIP code</label> element. Use class="visually-hidden" if you don't want it visible:
<label for="zip" class="visually-hidden">ZIP code</label>
<input id="zip" type="text" placeholder="ZIP">
4. Inaccessible PDFs of disclosures
Truth in Savings disclosures, fee schedules, rate sheets, NCUA insurance disclosures. Almost universally inaccessible: untagged structure, missing language, no document title, scanned-image rate tables.
Fix: re-export PDFs from source documents (Word, InDesign) with accessibility tagging enabled. For scanned documents, run OCR + manual tag review in Acrobat Pro. Or — better long-term — convert key disclosures to HTML pages with proper structure.
5. Missing alt text on hero / lifestyle imagery
CU websites lean heavily on stock-photo hero imagery (smiling families, retired couples, students). Images often missing alt attributes or carrying generic "image" alt text. Failure of WCAG 1.1.1.
Fix: write descriptive alt text or use empty alt (alt="") for purely decorative images. CMS-level fix — most CU CMS platforms have an alt-text field that just isn't being filled in.
Less common but high-impact failures
Beyond the five universals, three failures show up regularly:
Branch locator map inaccessibility
Embedded Google Maps or third-party map widgets are often keyboard-inaccessible and screen-reader hostile. Provide a text-based alternative: a list of branches with addresses, phone numbers, and hours, in addition to the map.
Login modal traps focus
Many CU sites have an "Online Banking Login" modal triggered from the homepage. Common failures: focus doesn't move to the modal when opened, Escape doesn't close it, focus isn't trapped inside while open, focus doesn't return to the trigger when closed.
Skip-link missing
A "skip to main content" link is the single highest-leverage accessibility addition for keyboard and screen reader users. Most CU templates omit it. Add this as the first focusable element:
<a href="#main" class="skip-link">Skip to main content</a>
With CSS that hides it until focused.
Why vendor pressure matters
Most of these failures are at the template level, not your specific CU's customizations. Pressuring your vendor to remediate the template benefits everyone using the platform.
A reasonable approach:
- Identify which failures are template vs. your customizations.
- File a remediation ticket with the vendor for template-level issues.
- Coordinate with peer CUs through your league or user group; collective requests get prioritized.
- Remediate your CU-specific issues directly.
Realistic remediation timeline
For a typical 50-page CU site:
- CSS-level fixes (contrast, focus indicators, skip links): 1–2 developer days.
- Form labels and ARIA: 2–4 developer days.
- PDF remediation: 30–60 minutes per PDF; budget for the inventory.
- Vendor template fixes: 3–18 months. Long lead time. File the tickets and follow up.
How does continuous monitoring help here?
Once you remediate, the goal is to not have it regress. Marketing teams update content, designers tweak templates, vendors push CMS updates. Without continuous scanning, accessibility decays measurably over months.
SEO Score API's financial services vertical runs continuous WCAG 2.1 AA scans across your CU's site, with audit logs in formats examiners expect.
What about ADA complaint exposure specifically?
The five universals above are exactly what plaintiff firms cite in demand letters. Remediating them measurably reduces complaint exposure. Documented continuous monitoring further reduces post-remediation regression risk.
Are credit union vendors actually responsive?
Variable. The major core processors (Jack Henry, Fiserv) have accessibility teams and respond to documented requests, especially when leagues or multiple CUs file collectively. Smaller CU-specialized agencies (BloomCU, ePolicy) are typically more responsive because the customer base is smaller and feedback loops shorter.
In all cases, document your request in writing, with specific WCAG criteria and screenshots. Vague "make our site more accessible" requests typically don't move; specific "WCAG 1.4.3 fails on rate tables, here's the screenshot" requests do.
Is there a quick win for our CU today?
Yes:
- Run a free scan of your homepage.
- Look for the five universals above in the report.
- CSS fixes for the contrast and focus issues take an hour. Form labels take half a day. Both improve your accessibility posture and your SEO score (Google now factors page experience signals into ranking).