A Guide to Assist Review Teams Evaluate Evidence of Web Accessibility during the Reaffirmation Process
As part of GOALS’ continuing efforts to help institutions leverage their web accessibility efforts during accreditation or the reaffirmation process, GOALS has outlined a set of Best Practices for Institution-Wide Web Accessibility and provided a template and examples for documenting web accessibility efforts. However, those materials do not provide guidance on how to determine the quality of the evidence within the template.
This document is a guide to help Accreditation Review Teams to understand and evaluate institutional evidence of web accessibility efforts. These guidelines may also serve to assist institutions in reviewing and enhancing their reaffirmation materials as they are developed.
Indicator #1: Institutional Vision and Leadership Commitment
Institution-wide web accessibility is best attained and sustained when there is leadership to support a vision and commitment toward institutional accessibility. This support should come from many levels including an institution's governing board, central administration, and key personnel. Each must actively support, participate, and take ownership in the work and outcomes of accessibility.
Assessment Review Teams might see evidence for this commitment in any number of ways. Two Benchmarks distinguish Institutional Vision and Leadership Commitment. Under each benchmark are some examples of evidence that would support institutional claims of adherence to that particular benchmark - other evidence may also exist. Clicking in the (+) next to each example will open a list of questions that can be used to help determine the strength of the given evidence.
Benchmark A: The Commitment of Administrative Leadership
It should be noted, that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples show added strength of administrative commitment.
An institutional statement of vision or commitment to web accessibility (+)
- Is the statement explicit that it pertains to web accessibility for persons with disabilities?
- A definition will help clarify what is meant by web accessibility
- Is it easily understandable?
- Is it published with any other commitment and vision statements?
- Is it easy to find?
- Is it publicized and promoted?
- Does the statement make relevant stakeholders aware of their responsibilities toward web accessibility?
The creation and support of a web accessibility task force or institution-wide accessibility group (+)
- Does the task force represent a wide range of relevant stakeholders to ensure an array of perspectives is represented? This might include:
- Those who will develop and oversee accessibility initiatives
- Content Developers
- Web Designers and Programmers
- Others who will engage in the institution’s accessibility work
- Consumers of the end product
- Is there is documentation that this group has the understanding and authority to recommend and develop initiatives to promote and encourage web accessibility across the institution?
- Is there is documentation that the group is empowered and supported by the administration?
- Is there is documentation that the group is taking ownership for changing the institutional climate and obtaining buy-in from the institutional community?
- Is there evidence that the group is sustainable and ongoing?
An institutional policy on web accessibility (+)
- Does the policy align with the Institutional Mission?
- Is there is evidence that the policy has been published and endorsed by the institutional administration?
- Is there is evidence that the policy has been endorsed by the governing board or trustees?
- Is the policy included in central administrative policy documents such as employee handbooks, student government guidelines, or faculty senate rules?
- Is it published with other policy and position documents?
- Is there is evidence that the policy is consistently and appropriately enforced?
- Visit Indicator #2 Benchmark B for guidance on the components of a Web Accessibility Policy
An institution-wide accessibility action plan (+)
- Is there is evidence that the policy has been published and endorsed by the institutional administration?
- Does the plan align with and support the Institutional Web Accessibility Policy?
- Does the plan link to the strategic goals of the institution?
- Does the plan include both current and future accessibility efforts?
- Is the plan is detailed enough to provide a roadmap for those who will be charged with implementing the plan?
- Is the plan extensible to new technologies and institutional situations?
- Visit Indicator #2 Benchmark C for guidance on the components of a Web Accessibility Plan
The availability of resources for web accessibility efforts (+)
- Is there is evidence of administrative commitment for resources dedicated to web accessibility efforts, such as time, money, resources and personnel?
- Is there is evidence that administration is involved in planning and allocating resources for web accessibility efforts?
- Visit Indicator #3 for guidance on Web Accessibility Resources
Activities to advance the visibility, promotion, and communication of web accessibility efforts (+)
- Are the statements of administration and leadership support for web accessibility efforts published and widely available?
- Is there is documentation of regular status updates on web accessibility efforts from administration and/or the accessibility task force?
- Is there is documentation of ongoing and consistent communication with faculty, staff, students, and the community outside the institution? If yes, does the communication plan:
- Reinforce the administration’s commitment to the accessibility plan?
- Inform stakeholders of their roles in the process?
- Include upcoming targets, timelines or goals?
- Encourage feedback and discussion?
- Visit Indicator 2 Benchmark D for more on Communication
Benchmark B: Relevant Stakeholder Participation
It should be noted, that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples show added strength of Stakeholder Participation.
Individuals representing a full range of stakeholders are involved in institution-wide planning and continuous improvement (+)
- While not all stakeholders will participate in all activities, does the representative group include individuals from:
- Administrative units?
- Central IT?
- Student services?
- The disability resource office?
- Representative faculty and staff members?
- Accessibility specialists?
- Individuals with disabilities?
- Risk management?
- Procurement offices?
- Sponsored programs?
- Human resources?
- University council?
Institution personnel are engaged in professional development that includes, or is focused on, web accessibility (+)
- Is there documentation of training and professional development specific to the stakeholders expected rolls?
- Does documentation include the dates, descriptions and numbers of participants?
- Is there feedback that the training is adequate and appropriate for its purpose of helping the participants fulfill their roles to achieve institutional web accessibility?
- Is there documentation of changes in training to improve efficacy and update technical information?
- Visit Indicator 3 Benchmarks D for more on Training
Faculty, staff and students take responsibility for web accessibility outcomes within their purview (+)
- Is there documentation that participation and buy-in exists? This might been seen in the following:
- Role statements
- Evidence of training
- Meeting Notes
- Reports on progress
- Memos
- Communications – official and unofficial
- Mechanisms for and (the results of) accessibility feedback from students and staff with disabilities
- The assessment (and results) of web accessibility outcomes across the institutional web
- Is there documentation of participation and buy-in by different groups at the institution? This might be seen across the following groups:
- Administrators to support web accessibility efforts across the institution
- Technical staff involved in designing accessible web pages
- Faculty who identify and upload accessible materials into course management tools
- Staff who create accessible documents intended for the web
- Staff who ensure that institutional purchases meet the accessibility standard
- Individuals with disabilities who provide feedback on the accessibility outcomes
- Is there evidence that those expected to take responsibility for web accessibility activities are empowered and equipped to do so?
Systems are available for individuals to provide feedback on the implementation and outcomes of web accessibility (+)
- Is there documentation of the available feedback systems? These would include feedback and reporting systems for:
- Members of the accessibility planning committee
- Faculty and Staff who are charged with implementing accessibility
- Persons with disabilities who are accessing the institutional web and materials
- Is there documentation of the amount of use these systems receive?
- Is there documentation on the promotion of these systems to ensure that the target audiences are aware of their existence and use them?
- Is there is documentation of the feedback received from these systems?
- Is there is documentation or a description of how the feedback is used to improve accessibility planning, development and assessment?