Rocket Touchscreen WCAG 2.2 AA Accessible: Why Accessibility Compliance Matters for Digital Recognition Displays

Understanding WCAG 2.2 AA Compliance for Touchscreen Displays

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2, published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), establish internationally recognized standards for making digital content accessible to people with disabilities. Level AA compliance represents the middle tier of conformance and serves as the legal standard for many institutions, particularly those receiving federal funding or subject to Section 508 requirements.

For touchscreen recognition displays, WCAG 2.2 AA compliance addresses multiple accessibility dimensions:

• Visual accessibility: High contrast ratios, scalable text, and alternative visual presentations for visitors with low vision
• Motor accessibility: Touch target sizing, timing adjustments, and alternative input methods for visitors with mobility limitations
• Cognitive accessibility: Clear navigation, consistent interactions, and error prevention for visitors with cognitive disabilities
• Assistive technology compatibility: Proper semantic markup, keyboard navigation, and screen reader support for visitors using assistive devices

According to the CDC, approximately 26% of adults in the United States have some type of disability. For educational institutions and public facilities, this translates to roughly one in four visitors potentially requiring accessibility accommodations. Recognition displays that fail to meet WCAG standards effectively exclude significant portions of the community they aim to serve.

Legal and Policy Framework Driving Accessibility Requirements

Multiple overlapping legal frameworks require accessibility compliance for digital displays in institutional settings:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Title II applies to state and local government entities, including public schools and universities. Title III covers public accommodations, affecting private schools and nonprofit organizations. While the ADA predates modern digital technology, courts increasingly interpret its requirements to encompass digital displays and kiosks in physical spaces.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Federal agencies and institutions receiving federal funding must ensure electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities. Section 508 references WCAG 2.0 Level AA as the technical standard, with many institutions proactively adopting WCAG 2.2 as it represents the current best practice.

State-Specific Legislation: Many states have enacted accessibility requirements exceeding federal minimums. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, New York’s Human Rights Law, and similar state statutes establish independent grounds for accessibility requirements.

Institutions that deploy inaccessible digital recognition displays face multiple risks:

• Legal liability: Complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights or private lawsuits alleging discrimination
• Reputational damage: Public criticism for excluding community members with disabilities
• Financial penalties: Enforcement actions requiring expensive remediation
• Mission compromise: Failing to serve the complete institutional community

Solutions like Rocket Alumni Solutions design accessibility compliance into the core architecture rather than treating it as an afterthought. This architectural approach ensures consistent accessibility across all content types, recognition categories, and interface interactions.

Common Accessibility Failures in Digital Recognition Displays

Many digital recognition providers implement touchscreen displays that fail basic accessibility requirements. Evaluation committees should recognize these common deficiencies:

Insufficient Color Contrast: WCAG 2.2 requires a minimum contrast ratio of 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text. Many displays use institutional branding colors without verifying contrast compliance, rendering text illegible for visitors with low vision or color blindness. Athletic team colors (maroon on navy, gold on white) frequently create contrast failures.

Inadequate Touch Target Sizing: WCAG 2.2 Level AA requires interactive elements maintain minimum dimensions of 24 by 24 CSS pixels to accommodate visitors with limited motor control. Displays featuring small navigation buttons, crowded profile grids, or dense filter controls fail this requirement.

Non-Scalable Interfaces: Fixed-size text and images that cannot be magnified without horizontal scrolling violate WCAG requirements. Visitors with low vision who increase text size should access complete content without usability degradation.

Timing Constraints: Displays that automatically reset sessions after brief inactivity periods disadvantage visitors who require additional time to read content, navigate interfaces, or operate controls. WCAG requires either extended timing or the ability to turn off time limits.

Keyboard Inaccessibility: Touchscreen-only operation excludes visitors who cannot use touch interfaces. WCAG requires all functionality remain operable through keyboard interfaces as an alternative to touch input.

Missing Alternative Text: Profile images, achievement photos, and decorative graphics lacking alternative text descriptions remain inaccessible to screen reader users. This failure particularly impacts blind visitors exploring alumni profiles or athletic achievements.

These accessibility failures share a common root cause: vendors treating accessibility as a compliance checkbox rather than a design principle integrated throughout development. Remediation after deployment proves expensive and often incomplete. Evaluation committees should demand providers demonstrate accessibility from initial design through final implementation.

Rocket Alumni Solutions: Purpose-Built Accessibility Compliance

Rocket Alumni Solutions architected its touchscreen platform with WCAG 2.2 Level AA compliance as a foundational requirement rather than a post-development addition. This commitment manifests across multiple system layers:

Interface Design and Visual Accessibility

Rocket’s interface design team conducts contrast ratio verification across all color combinations, ensuring text remains legible regardless of institutional branding choices. The platform supports high contrast modes that increase visual distinction for visitors with low vision. All text scales responsively without breaking layouts or requiring horizontal scrolling, accommodating visitors who increase text size for comfortable reading.

The system includes multiple visual presentation modes optimizing different accessibility needs—standard visual presentation, enhanced contrast, reduced motion, and simplified layouts. Visitors select their preferred mode through prominent accessibility controls positioned consistently across all screens.

Motor Accessibility and Input Methods

All interactive elements in Rocket displays maintain generous touch target dimensions exceeding WCAG minimums. Profile cards, navigation buttons, filter controls, and media playback controls provide ample activation areas for visitors with limited fine motor control. Spacing between interactive elements prevents accidental activation of adjacent controls.

The platform supports multiple input methods beyond touch interaction. Visitors can navigate complete functionality using external keyboards, switch devices, or other assistive input technologies. This multi-modal input support ensures motor disabilities don’t prevent display interaction. For more guidance on accessible interactive kiosk implementations, institutions can reference comprehensive deployment guides.

Timing and Session Management

Rocket displays implement intelligent timing policies balancing security with accessibility. Inactivity timeouts provide prominent warnings before session termination, giving visitors ample opportunity to extend sessions. Visitors can configure extended timeout periods accommodating slower reading or navigation paces. Critical interactions (search operations, profile browsing) never impose artificial time constraints.

The platform remembers visitor preferences across sessions. Visitors who configure extended timeouts, high contrast modes, or other accessibility settings don’t repeatedly reset preferences for each interaction.

Cognitive accessibility receives equal attention to visual and motor accessibility. Rocket displays maintain consistent navigation patterns, clear information architecture, and straightforward interaction models. Visitors encountering the display for the first time quickly understand how to search for specific individuals, filter by achievement categories, or explore historical timelines without instruction.

Assistive Technology Support

Rocket’s web-based architecture generates semantic HTML markup compatible with screen readers, braille displays, and other assistive technologies. Every interface element includes appropriate ARIA labels providing screen reader users complete context about available actions and current states. Profile images, achievement photos, and media content include meaningful alternative text descriptions.

The platform supports keyboard navigation throughout all interface sections. Visitors using screen readers or keyboard-only input access identical functionality to touch interface users. Focus indicators clearly identify the currently active element during keyboard navigation. Organizations interested in comprehensive accessible digital displays can explore detailed implementation approaches.

Content Management Accessibility Tools

Accessibility extends beyond visitor-facing interfaces to content management tools. Rocket’s CMS guides content creators toward accessible practices through built-in validation. The system prompts editors to add alternative text for images, flags insufficient color contrast in custom styling, and recommends heading structure improvements. This editorial guidance ensures content creators without accessibility expertise still produce compliant content.

The platform includes accessibility testing tools enabling institutions to verify WCAG compliance before publishing new content or design updates. These preventive measures maintain consistent accessibility as recognition content grows over time.

Comparison Matrix: Accessibility Compliance Across Vendors

Understanding how different digital recognition providers approach accessibility helps evaluation committees identify truly accessible solutions versus vendors making aspirational claims:

This comparison reveals that purpose-built recognition platforms like Rocket deliver comprehensive accessibility through architectural design, while alternative approaches require extensive customization or accept accessibility gaps.

Decision Framework: Evaluating Accessibility Claims

Procurement committees evaluating digital recognition vendors should apply rigorous standards when assessing accessibility claims. Aspirational commitments and vague assurances differ substantially from demonstrated compliance:

Require Documentation, Not Promises

Demand Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs): VPATs document how products conform to Section 508 standards and WCAG requirements. Vendors genuinely committed to accessibility maintain current VPATs describing conformance levels, exceptions, and remediation plans. Vendors unable to provide VPATs lack systematic accessibility practices.

Request Third-Party Audit Reports: Independent accessibility audits from firms specializing in WCAG evaluation provide objective conformance assessment. Vendor self-assessments lack the credibility of external verification. Recent audit reports (within 12 months) demonstrate ongoing accessibility commitment rather than one-time compliance.

Review Accessibility Roadmaps: Ask vendors how they track accessibility bugs, prioritize remediation, and incorporate new WCAG criteria. Mature accessibility programs maintain formal tracking, conduct regular audits, and publish remediation timelines. Institutions planning digital recognition walls should verify vendor accessibility practices early in evaluation.

Test Real Implementations

Schedule On-Site Demonstrations: Evaluate accessibility using assistive technologies during vendor demonstrations. Bring screen reader users, keyboard-only operators, and visitors with low vision to test actual usability rather than theoretical compliance. Observe whether interfaces truly accommodate diverse abilities or merely check specification boxes.

Reference Check Accessibility: Contact existing customers about accessibility experiences. Ask whether visitors with disabilities successfully use displays, whether accessibility issues arose post-deployment, and how responsive vendors proved to remediation requests.

Examine Content Management Accessibility: Test whether non-technical staff can maintain accessibility compliance through content updates. Platforms requiring developer intervention for accessible content creation impose ongoing costs and create compliance risks.

For institutions managing athletic recognition programs, accessible displays ensure all athletes, families, and community members engage with accomplishments regardless of ability. Solutions supporting comprehensive athletic awards recognition must maintain accessibility across diverse content types and navigation patterns.

Assess Architectural Approach

Web Standards vs. Proprietary Technologies: Platforms built on web standards (HTML, CSS, JavaScript) leverage extensive accessibility tooling and assistive technology compatibility. Proprietary rendering engines or custom technologies require specialized accessibility implementations often lagging behind web standards.

Responsive vs. Fixed Design: Responsive interfaces adapting to different viewport sizes, text scaling, and input methods inherently support diverse accessibility needs. Fixed-dimension designs optimized for specific hardware configurations resist accessibility accommodations.

Content Separation: Platforms separating content from presentation enable consistent accessibility application across all recognition categories. Systems tightly coupling content with visual design create accessibility maintenance burdens.

Why Rocket Alumni Solutions Wins the Accessibility Comparison

When evaluation committees apply rigorous accessibility assessment criteria, Rocket Alumni Solutions demonstrates clear advantages over alternative approaches:

Proactive Compliance vs. Reactive Remediation: Rocket architects accessibility into core platform design rather than retrofitting compliance after accessibility complaints. This proactive approach eliminates the accessibility debt plaguing platforms that address compliance incrementally. Organizations exploring donor recognition solutions benefit from platforms where accessibility extends across all recognition categories.

Comprehensive vs. Partial Compliance: Many vendors achieve accessibility in isolated interface sections while leaving critical functionality inaccessible. Rocket maintains consistent WCAG conformance across profile browsing, search operations, media playback, timeline exploration, and administrative interfaces. Visitors never encounter accessibility dead-ends where interface sections become unusable.

Sustained vs. Point-in-Time Compliance: Accessibility represents an ongoing commitment requiring sustained attention as platforms evolve. Rocket’s regular third-party audits, formalized remediation processes, and accessibility-integrated development practices maintain compliance through platform updates and feature additions. Alternative vendors often achieve initial compliance but allow accessibility regressions as they add functionality.

Content Creator Tools vs. Developer Requirements: Rocket embeds accessibility guidance into content management tools, enabling non-technical staff to maintain compliance through routine updates. Platforms requiring developer intervention for accessible content creation impose ongoing costs and create accessibility risks when content creators lack technical accessibility expertise.

Multi-Modal Accessibility vs. Single Accommodation: Rocket addresses visual, motor, cognitive, and assistive technology accessibility simultaneously through architectural design. Alternative approaches often emphasize single accessibility dimensions (commonly visual contrast) while neglecting motor, cognitive, or assistive technology accommodation. Comprehensive accessibility requires coordinated attention to all disability categories.

Hardware Flexibility vs. Accessibility Constraints: Rocket’s platform operates across diverse hardware configurations without compromising accessibility. This flexibility enables institutions to select mounting heights, screen sizes, and installation positions optimizing physical accessibility while maintaining interface accessibility. Hardware-dependent platforms constrain physical accessibility accommodations. Institutions planning school lobby designs benefit from platforms supporting diverse installation approaches without accessibility compromises.

Documentation vs. Verbal Assurances: Rocket provides formal VPATs, third-party audit reports, and accessibility conformance documentation supporting procurement compliance. Many vendors offer verbal accessibility commitments without formal documentation, creating risks for institutions requiring documented compliance for federal funding, accreditation, or legal proceedings.

Implementation Best Practices for Accessible Recognition Displays

Selecting accessible platform technology represents the critical first step, but successful accessibility requires attention to implementation decisions beyond software selection:

Physical Installation Considerations

Mounting Height Compliance: Position touchscreen displays so the center falls between 40-48 inches from the floor, accommodating both standing users and visitors using wheelchairs. Avoid mounting displays too high, requiring uncomfortable viewing angles or unreachable touch targets.

Clear Floor Space: Provide minimum 30 by 48 inch clear floor space directly in front of displays, enabling wheelchair users to approach controls. Ensure this clear space falls within accessible routes from building entrances to displays.

Approach Angles: Position displays perpendicular to circulation paths where possible, minimizing awkward side approaches. For displays along corridors, provide adequate space for parallel and forward approaches.

Knee and Toe Clearance: Ensure display enclosures, plinths, or casework don’t obstruct knee and toe clearance under displays, particularly for front-approach scenarios. Minimum 27-inch knee clearance height and 9-inch toe clearance depth support comfortable wheelchair approach.

Glare Control: Position displays away from windows and bright light sources creating screen glare. Install displays perpendicular to windows rather than facing them. Consider anti-glare screen coatings for installations in bright environments. Schools implementing digital trophy cases must balance aesthetic integration with accessibility requirements.

Acoustic environments impact accessibility for visitors with hearing difficulties or using assistive listening devices. Install displays in relatively quiet locations away from HVAC vents, high-traffic corridors, or noisy mechanical systems. For displays featuring audio content, provide headphone jacks supporting personal listening devices.

Content Strategy for Accessibility

Alternative Text Quality: Move beyond perfunctory image descriptions to meaningful alternative text conveying equivalent information. For athletic achievement photos, describe not just “athlete portrait” but “Sarah Chen, 2023 State Champion, 400-meter hurdles, crossing finish line with championship medal.”

Descriptive Link Text: Avoid generic link text like “click here” or “read more” that lacks context for screen reader users navigating by links. Use descriptive phrases like “view Michael Johnson’s complete athletic history” conveying link purpose without surrounding context.

Heading Structure: Maintain logical heading hierarchies (H1, H2, H3) throughout content sections, enabling screen reader users to navigate by headings. Avoid skipping heading levels or using headings solely for visual styling.

Plain Language: Write recognition content at accessible reading levels using clear, direct language. Minimize jargon, define technical terms, and structure sentences for easy comprehension. This practice benefits all visitors while particularly supporting visitors with cognitive disabilities. Organizations building academic recognition programs must maintain accessibility across diverse achievement categories.

Caption Complete Videos: Provide synchronized captions for all video content including interviews, achievement highlights, and historical footage. Ensure captions capture not just dialogue but relevant audio information (music, sound effects, crowd reactions) providing equivalent experiences for deaf visitors.

Staff Training and Governance

Content Creator Training: Train all staff updating recognition content on accessibility requirements and best practices. Provide practical guidance on writing alternative text, maintaining color contrast, structuring headings, and verifying keyboard accessibility before publishing updates.

Accessibility Champions: Designate accessibility champions within departments maintaining recognition content. These specialists develop deeper accessibility expertise, serve as resources for colleagues, and coordinate with institutional accessibility offices.

Pre-Publication Checklists: Implement accessibility verification checklists content creators complete before publishing new profiles, updating existing content, or modifying interface elements. Preventive verification proves more efficient than post-publication remediation.

Feedback Mechanisms: Provide visible accessibility feedback channels enabling visitors to report barriers. Monitor feedback regularly, prioritize remediation, and document resolution. Responsive accessibility issue handling demonstrates institutional commitment and maintains compliance. Institutions managing alumni recognition programs should establish clear protocols for accessibility issue resolution.

Ongoing Accessibility Assessment

Regular Audits: Schedule accessibility audits at 12-month intervals or after significant content or platform updates. Combine automated accessibility testing tools with manual evaluation by users with disabilities for comprehensive assessment.

Assistive Technology Testing: Test displays periodically with screen readers, screen magnification software, voice control systems, and alternative input devices. Technology advances and platform updates can introduce unexpected accessibility barriers requiring detection and remediation.

Usability Studies: Conduct usability testing sessions including participants with diverse disabilities. Observe where accessibility compliant interfaces still create usability challenges requiring design improvements beyond minimum compliance.

The Business Case for Accessible Recognition Displays

Beyond legal compliance and moral imperatives, accessible recognition displays deliver measurable institutional benefits justifying investment:

Expanded Audience Reach: Accessible displays engage approximately 26% more visitors compared to inaccessible alternatives, ensuring recognition reaches complete institutional communities. This expanded reach matters particularly for fundraising recognition, where accessible donor walls engage all potential contributors.

Reputation Enhancement: Visible accessibility commitment strengthens institutional reputation for inclusion and social responsibility. Prospective students, donors, and community partners increasingly evaluate institutions on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, with digital accessibility serving as tangible evidence.

Reduced Legal Risk: Proactive accessibility compliance prevents expensive lawsuits, OCR complaints, and remediation costs. Legal defense and settlement expenses dwarf preventive accessibility investment.

Improved Usability for All: Accessibility features benefit visitors beyond those with disabilities. Large touch targets benefit all users in crowded environments. High contrast improves readability in bright lighting. Clear navigation helps first-time visitors regardless of ability. This universal design principle demonstrates that accessibility improvements benefit everyone.

Future-Proof Investment: Platforms architected for accessibility adapt more easily to evolving standards, new assistive technologies, and changing regulatory requirements. Accessibility-first platforms demonstrate lower total cost of ownership through reduced remediation and longer useful life. Organizations implementing memorial walls honoring community members should ensure these tributes remain accessible to all visitors.

For development offices implementing donor recognition programs, accessibility directly impacts fundraising effectiveness. Accessible donor walls engage all potential contributors, demonstrate institutional values alignment, and prevent legal complications that could harm donor relationships. Solutions supporting comprehensive donor recognition must maintain accessibility across giving levels and recognition categories.

Common Questions About Accessibility Compliance

Does WCAG 2.2 Level AA apply to physical touchscreen displays? While WCAG primarily addresses web content, its principles extend to interactive digital interfaces including touchscreen kiosks. Courts increasingly interpret ADA Title II and Title III to encompass digital interfaces in physical spaces. Section 508 explicitly references WCAG for covered technology. Prudent institutions apply WCAG standards to all digital interfaces regardless of delivery mechanism.

What’s the difference between WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.2? WCAG 2.2, published in October 2023, adds nine new success criteria to WCAG 2.1 addressing mobile accessibility, cognitive accessibility, and low vision accommodation. Content conforming to WCAG 2.2 automatically conforms to WCAG 2.1. Institutions should target WCAG 2.2 as current best practice even when regulations reference earlier versions.

Can we achieve accessibility with any platform through customization? Theoretically yes, practically no. Retrofitting accessibility onto platforms designed without accessibility consideration requires extensive custom development, proves expensive, introduces maintenance burdens, and typically achieves partial rather than comprehensive compliance. Purpose-built accessible platforms deliver superior results at lower total cost.

How do we verify vendor accessibility claims? Request VPATs, third-party audit reports, and accessibility documentation. Conduct hands-on testing with assistive technologies during demonstrations. Reference check accessibility with existing customers. Observe whether accessibility permeates vendor development practices or represents superficial marketing claims.

What remediation timeline should we expect for accessibility issues? Platforms with mature accessibility programs typically remediate critical accessibility barriers within 30 days, moderate barriers within 90 days, and minor barriers within 180 days. Vendors lacking formal remediation commitments or extending timelines beyond these benchmarks demonstrate weak accessibility practices.

Does accessibility compromise aesthetics or functionality? No. This persistent misconception reflects poor design rather than accessibility constraints. Well-designed accessible interfaces match or exceed aesthetic quality and functional sophistication of inaccessible alternatives. Rocket demonstrates that accessibility and design excellence coexist through thoughtful architecture.

Procurement Language for Accessibility Requirements

Evaluation committees should incorporate explicit accessibility requirements into RFPs, vendor contracts, and acceptance criteria. Sample language establishing clear expectations:

Mandatory Requirements Section:

“The proposed touchscreen recognition display system must demonstrate WCAG 2.2 Level AA conformance across all user-facing interfaces, content management tools, and administrative functions. The vendor must provide current Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) documenting conformance, exceptions, and remediation plans. The vendor must conduct annual third-party accessibility audits by qualified accessibility testing firms and provide audit reports to the institution.

The system must support multiple input modalities including touch, keyboard, and alternative input devices. All interactive elements must maintain minimum touch target dimensions of 24 by 24 CSS pixels. The interface must support user-configurable contrast modes, timing adjustments, and motion preferences. All visual content must include meaningful alternative text. All video content must include synchronized captions.

The content management system must include accessibility validation tools prompting editors to add alternative text, verifying color contrast compliance, and recommending heading structure improvements. Content creators without technical accessibility expertise must be able to maintain WCAG compliance through routine content operations without developer intervention.

The vendor must provide accessibility training for institutional content managers covering alternative text, color contrast, heading structure, keyboard accessibility, and caption creation. The vendor must maintain documented accessibility remediation processes with committed timelines for critical, moderate, and minor accessibility barriers.

Physical installation recommendations must address ADA-compliant mounting heights, clear floor space, approach angles, and glare control. The vendor must coordinate with institutional accessibility and facilities teams to ensure physical installation accessibility.”

Evaluation Criteria Weighting:

Assign substantial weight (20-30%) to accessibility criteria within total evaluation scoring. This weighting signals accessibility priority and prevents technically superior but inaccessible proposals from winning based on other criteria.

Acceptance Testing Requirements:

“Institutional acceptance testing will include accessibility verification with screen readers (JAWS, NVDA), screen magnification software, keyboard-only navigation, and high contrast modes. Displays must pass accessibility testing without barriers preventing access to core functionality before final acceptance.”

This contractual language establishes clear expectations, enables objective evaluation, and provides enforcement mechanisms when vendors fail to deliver promised accessibility. Organizations planning digital signage implementations should incorporate similar accessibility language in procurement documents.

Conclusion: Accessibility as Strategic Advantage

WCAG 2.2 Level AA accessibility compliance represents the baseline expectation for digital recognition displays in educational, nonprofit, and public facility contexts. Legal requirements, policy mandates, and moral obligations converge to establish accessibility as non-negotiable. However, institutions moving beyond compliance mentality to embrace accessibility as design excellence and strategic advantage discover competitive benefits extending beyond risk mitigation.

Rocket Alumni Solutions demonstrates that purpose-built accessibility delivers superior results compared to retrofitted compliance. The platform’s architectural accessibility commitment, comprehensive WCAG conformance, sustained audit practices, and accessibility-integrated development processes establish clear advantages over alternative vendors treating accessibility as afterthought.

Evaluation committees assessing digital recognition vendors should demand documented accessibility conformance, test real implementations with assistive technologies, and incorporate explicit accessibility requirements into procurement documents. The accessibility investment made during vendor selection pays dividends through expanded audience reach, reduced legal risk, enhanced reputation, improved universal usability, and future-proof technology.

Your institutional recognition displays should celebrate achievements while embodying the inclusive values your institution promotes. Choose platforms where accessibility represents foundational architecture rather than compliance checkbox. Choose vendors whose accessibility commitment manifests through formal documentation, regular audits, and sustained remediation rather than marketing promises.

Rocket Alumni Solutions delivers WCAG 2.2 Level AA accessible touchscreen recognition displays designed specifically for educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and public facilities. The platform combines comprehensive accessibility compliance with sophisticated recognition capabilities, intuitive content management, and dedicated implementation support. Institutions prioritizing accessibility while maintaining design excellence and functional sophistication discover Rocket provides solutions matching both imperatives simultaneously.

Ready to implement accessible digital recognition displays that serve your complete institutional community? Book a demo with Rocket Alumni Solutions to explore how WCAG 2.2 Level AA compliance combines with sophisticated recognition technology, or learn more about interactive touchscreen solutions designed for institutional environments.

Your recognition displays should honor achievements while honoring all community members through accessible design that excludes no one.

Disclaimer: This comparison is based on publicly available information as of February 2026. All product names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Comparative statements reflect Rocket Alumni Solutions’ interpretation of available data and may change over time. This content was produced by or on behalf of Rocket Alumni Solutions. All trademarks are property of their respective owners. Rocket Alumni Solutions is not affiliated with or endorsed by any competing digital signage or recognition display providers mentioned in this article.

Written by the Team

Experts in digital hall of fame solutions, helping schools and organizations honor their legacy.

Rocket Alumni Solutions