Indicator #2: Planning and Implementation

Web accessibility requires strategic planning. Administrators must establish policies and procedures along with a systematic plan to develop, institute, and maintain web accessibility across the organization.

Assessment Review Teams might see evidence of planning and implantation in any number of ways. Four Benchmarks characterize the Planning and Implementation of Institution-Wide Web Accessibility. 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 Inclusion of Key Personnel

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 the inclusion of key personnel.

  • Involvement of key accessibility personnel and those they represent in web accessibility policy.* (+)

  • Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholder groups in the development of an institution-wide web accessibility plan.* (+)

  • Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholders in the implementation of an institution-wide web accessibility plan. (+)

Benchmark B: A Comprehensive Accessibility Policy

It should be noted, that while a given policy may not contain all of the elements listed below, these elements provide added strength to the comprehensiveness and utility of an accessibility policy. It is also possible that, due to the structure and framework of the policy system at a given institution, some of the elements may be found in overarching policy documents or elsewhere in the system and should still contribute to the merit of the policy.

    Elements of a Comprehensive Policy include:

  • A summary statement of the policy (+)

  • Effective date(s) for compliance to the policy (+)

  • The scope of the policy (+)

  • A recognized technical standard for web accessibility (e.g., Section 508 or WCAG 2.0 AA) (+)

  • A provision for procurement and collaborative resources (+)

  • Consequences for non-conformance to the policy (+)

  • Mechanisms for ongoing review (+)

Benchmark C: A Comprehensive Written Accessibility Plan

It should be noted, that while a given plan may not contain all of the elements listed below, these elements provide added strength to the comprehensiveness and utility of the plan.

    Elements of a Comprehensive Plan include:

  • An executive summary of the plan (+)

  • A provision for benchmarking and market evaluation (+)

  • A provision to gather baseline information (+)

  • Identification of existing institutional challenges and risks (+)

  • Identification of existing institutional priorities (+)

  • A process to communicate and market the plan to the campus and other communities (+)

  • A provision for budget items appropriate to accomplish the plan (+)

  • Metrics, milestones, and measurable steps (+)

  • A timeline for rollout of the milestones and measurable steps (+)

  • The assignment of specific responsibilities (+)

  • An education plan for staff, faculty and students (+)

  • An institution-wide plan to obtain and use feedback (+)

  • A plan to monitor the progress of accessibility outcomes (+)

  • An explicit strategy to evaluate and revise the plan in an ongoing way (+)

Benchmark D: The Implementation of the Written Plan

It should be noted, that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples strengthens the evidence of a commitment to the implementation of an accessibility plan.

  • Meeting minutes of the accessibility team/task force (+)

  • Documentation of baseline information or reference (starting) points (+)

  • A budget sufficient to support institution-wide accessibility efforts (+)

  • Committed efforts by administration, faculty and staff to sustain web accessibility(+)

  • Communication and marketing of the accessibility plan across campus and beyond (+)

  • Data on web accessibility training for personnel (+)

  • Documentation of implementation progress (+)

  • Documentation on the feedback from different levels of implementation (+)

  • Indications of actions taken for nonconforming web content (+)

  • Web accessibility outcome data (+)