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.* (+)
-
*The development of the policy and the plan represent two separate bodies of evidence for the inclusion of key personnel in web accessibility. However, the properties that enhance the strength of evidence for each are similar. Please review “Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholder groups in the development of an institution-wide web accessibility plan” (the next thing in the list) for guidance on this subject.
Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholder groups in the development of an institution-wide web accessibility plan.* (+)
- Is there documentation that a wide array of stakeholders are involved in the development of the accessibility policy / plan?
- Personnel knowledgeable about web accessibility?
- Personnel from different departments or units?
- Disability Advocates?
- Technology Leaders?
- Faculty?
- Staff?
- Staff or Students with disabilities?
- Is there is evidence that administration solicits input from key accessibility personnel (representatives from the various stakeholder groups described above) on the accessibility policy / plan?
- Is there evidence that key accessibility personnel work to promote buy-in from the broader stakeholder groups (those represented by the key accessibility personnel as well as end users of web content and those who will implement the institution-wide policy /plan)?
- Is there is evidence that key accessibility personnel provide input that can help make the policy / plan understandable and approachable to those who will be expected to enact it?
- Is there evidence that administration solicits feedback from the broader stakeholder groups on the accessibility policy / plan?
- Is there is evidence of mechanisms that can be used by all stakeholder groups to provide feedback on the accessibility policy / plan?
- Are mechanisms for feedback visible?
- Is there documentation of this feedback?
- Is there evidence that this feedback was taken into consideration and used to improve the policy/plan?
Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholders in the implementation of an institution-wide web accessibility plan. (+)
- Is there documentation of a web accessibility committee comprised of key personnel? (see definition above)
- Is there evidence that the web accessibility committee is given the necessary authority and support to guide the implementation of the plan?
- Is there evidence that the web accessibility committee is active and involved in the implementation process?
- Is there documentation that key personnel are assigned to oversee and/or implement parts of the plan?
- Is there documentation that key personnel are involved in monitoring the progress of the plan?
- Is there evidence that key personnel are assigned to ensure that the plan is on track and that the work being done conforms to the web accessibility standards mandated in the institutional policy?
- Is there is evidence of efforts made to help departments and personnel meet the requirements set forth in the policy
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.
A summary statement of the policy (+)
- Explicitly state the rational for the policy?
- Describe expected outcomes?
- Establish when key steps are to be completed?
- Outline how these steps will be achieved?
Does the statement
Effective date(s) for compliance to the policy (+)
- Is the date the policy comes into effect stated?
- If the implementation is phased, are all critical dates are listed?
The scope of the policy (+)
- Explicitly identify the web content that falls under the scope of the policy? This can include:
- University Content
- Course materials
- Legacy Pages
- Student pages
- Alumni pages
- Outline a protocol for pages not under the main institutional domain (e.g. alumni pages or student content in some institutions)?
- Explicitly identify web content that is exempt from the policy?
- Does it identify those who can authorize exceptions?
- Does it describe the process for obtaining exemptions?
Does the policy
A recognized technical standard for web accessibility (e.g., Section 508 or WCAG 2.0 AA) (+)
- Does the policy identify the technical standard that all included web content must conform to?
- Is the technical standard recognized and sufficiently stringent to ensure functional web accessibility? (Information on choosing a technical standard)
A provision for procurement and collaborative resources (+)
- Include a provision for procurement of accessible materials and content?
- Affirm that accessibility should be a factor in purchases, licensing agreements, requests for proposals, or other contracts?
- Include provisions for the procurement of accessible goods, services and contracts that will impact:
- Content creation and delivery tools?
- Authoring tools?
- Course or learning management systems?
- Student, financial and administrative tools?
- Course resources that are shared but originate from other institutions?
- Products developed by the institution?
Does the policy
Consequences for non-conformance to the policy (+)
- Does the policy include statements detailing the consequences when the policy is not followed?
- Note: these statements can be included in the policy, or referenced in other governing documents
Mechanisms for ongoing review (+)
- Include mechanisms to review and assess the appropriateness of current measures and make adjustments as necessary?
- Outline the frequency of this review process?
- Define a system for review and revision?
- Identify those responsible for the review and revision of the policy?
Does the policy
Elements of a Comprehensive Policy include:
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.
An executive summary of the plan (+)
- A clear overview?
- Benefits and market advantages?
- Key points of the plan?
- Important dates and milestones?
- Stakeholder responsibilities?
- Expected outcomes?
Does the summary contain
A provision for benchmarking and market evaluation (+)
- Provisions for evaluating websites of peer institutions and other relevant sites?
- Strategies for comparing institutional websites?
- Methods of highlighting exemplars of good accessibility strategies?
- Systems for identifying and avoiding accessibility pitfalls?
Does the plan include
A provision to gather baseline information (+)
- Conducting a baseline evaluation of the institutional web?
- How the evaluation will be conducted?
- What data will be collected?
- How the data will be used to evaluate outcomes and aid in necessary modifications?
Are there guidelines for
Identification of existing institutional challenges and risks (+)
- Assessing challenges and risks to implementing web accessibility across the institution?
- Overcoming the challenges and risks that are identified?
- Identifying and mitigating unforeseen challenges and risks as they are discovered?
Are there strategies for
Identification of existing institutional priorities (+)
- Ways that web accessibility can fit into existing institutional priorities (e.g. the redesign of the institutional web site, training initiatives for faculty and staff, hiring exceptional employees, strategic planning initiatives, and the accreditation or reaffirmation process)?
- Ways to leverage existing initiatives that can promote successful accessibility implementation?
- Provisions to assess any emerging institutional priorities for potential synergy with web accessibility efforts?
Does the plan identify
A process to communicate and market the plan to the campus and other communities (+)
- Who the communications will target?
- How all relevant stakeholders will be informed of the institutional effort?
- What will be communicated?
- This should include information on what will be expected of the various stakeholders - with sufficient information to help them understand and perform their roles in the process
- When and how often communications will occur?
Does the plan outline
A provision for budget items appropriate to accomplish the plan (+)
- A budget adequate to accomplish the goals outlined in the plan?
- Provisions for the funding of all aspects of the plan? These can include:
- Start-up costs
- Personnel
- Training
- Materials
- Licenses
- Equipment and Software
- Consultants
- Other areas of focus
- A plan for assessing the adequacy of the budget?
- Guidelines for responding to any significant budgetary changes?
Does the plan include
Metrics, milestones, and measurable steps (+)
- Short term activities?
- Long term objectives?
- Explicit expectations for personnel and stakeholder groups?
- Detailed descriptions of the benchmarks and metrics to be used to measure progress?
Does the plan identify
A timeline for rollout of the milestones and measurable steps (+)
- Specific dates (or date ranges) for all significant milestones and goals to be achieved across the project?
- These dates should be realistic and achievable for the given milestones
- Target dates that work in conjunction with the dates for conformance specified in the institutional web accessibility policy?
- Enough detail to allow the stakeholders to assess their progress to determine if they are on track for major deadlines and to assist the stakeholders in managing their responsibilities?
- Provisions for assessment of progress?
- Mechanisms for making adjustments as necessary?
Does the timeline provide
The assignment of specific responsibilities (+)
- Does the plan identify the names or positions of those responsible for carrying out different aspects of the plan?
- Are critical elements of the plan assigned to individuals with the expertise to carry out those responsibilities?
- Is sufficient time and resources allocated for these personnel to accomplish assigned responsibilities?
- Is time budgeted for additional duties such as meetings of the web accessibility team, inter-disciplinary coordination, and training?
An education plan for staff, faculty and students (+)
- Mechanisms for educating and training those who will be involved in the web accessibility plan?
- 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?
- Others with specialized roles or responsibilities?
- Provisions for providing support to those who will be involved in the web accessibility plan?
- Details on how individuals will receive the necessary education and support?
- How training will occur?
- Will it be embedded in existing training events?
- Will it be a new specialized training program?
- Will it be a hybrid of new and existing schedules?
- Provisions for evaluating the system of training and support?
- A mechanism for making changes to the system as necessary?
- A plan for ongoing training and support as technology or context changes?
Does the plan outline
An institution-wide plan to obtain and use feedback (+)
- Mechanisms to gather feedback from consumers (e.g. faculty, staff, students and community members with disabilities)?
- Mechanisms to gather feedback from those who are expected to implement the accessibility plan (e.g. staff, faculty, technology staff, procurement officers and human resource staff)?
- Specification that the feedback mechanisms will be easily located, accessible and usable by their target markets?
- An outline of how these mechanisms will be publicized to their target markets?
- Provisions for utilizing feedback data?
- Will the data be used to evaluate the systems/plans and make the necessary changes?
- Will the data be used in a timely way?
- Will collection and use of data be ongoing and dynamic?
Does the plan include
A plan to monitor the progress of accessibility outcomes (+)
- Provisions for oversight?
- Outcomes to be monitored?
- How this oversight will happen?
- Who will oversee and monitor progress?
- The schedule for oversight and monitoring?
- Provisions for adding or adjusting outcomes as necessary?
Does the plan specify
An explicit strategy to evaluate and revise the plan in an ongoing way (+)
- A stipulation that evaluation and monitoring will continue once its original objectives have been achieved?
- A strategy for ongoing evaluation at regular intervals to ensure that the institution maintains or improves its level of accessibility?
- Provisions to address changes in technology, evolving standards, and procedures in the future?
- A plan to use data from regular assessments to revise the current plan and address emerging needs?
- The personnel who will be responsible for this ongoing evaluation and monitoring?
Does the plan include
Elements of a Comprehensive Plan include:
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 (+)
- Do the meetings conform to (or exceed) those outlined in the accessibility plan?
- How often did the task force/team meet?
- Are regular meetings scheduled and the schedule kept?
- Are scheduled meetings well attended?
- Are additional meetings scheduled as needed?
- Do the meeting notes reflect the efficacy of the meetings?
- Did they discuss the progress of the accessibility plan so far?
- Did they discuss problems or issues that have arisen?
- Did they work through solutions to any issues or problems?
- Do the notes reflect a “game plan” or set of goals to be completed before the next meeting?
- Do all members of the team contribute as appropriate to the meetings?
Documentation of baseline information or reference (starting) points (+)
- Does collection of the baseline documentation follow (or exceed) what was included in the accessibility plan?
- Are baseline information or reference points available?
- Are they understandable?
- Do they accurately reflect the status of the institution’s accessibility?
- How comprehensive are the evaluations? Do they provide enough information to be able to measure progress from the baseline?
- Does the baseline information cover a variety of areas? Information may include:
- An accessibility audit of a sample of an institution’s web pages
- An assessment of personnel training in web accessibility
- Reports from Disability Resources on the number of requests from students who need digital accommodations or access.
- Information on how institution-wide challenges and priorities relate to the institutional work on web accessibility.
A budget sufficient to support institution-wide accessibility efforts (+)
- Does the budget conform to (or exceed) the budget as outlined in the accessibility plan?
- Does it cover personnel?
- Does it cover infrastructure?
- Is there documentation that the sufficiency of the budget has been evaluated?
- If the budget is not sufficient, is there a strategy to help supplement or augment it?
- Visit Indicator 3 Benchmark C for more guidance on Budget
Committed efforts by administration, faculty and staff to sustain web accessibility(+)
- Are there records or reports on the activities of administration, faculty and staff to show current support for web accessibility?
- Are web accessibility activities in line with the various responsibilities outlined in the accessibility plan or elsewhere?
- Is there documentation that those tasked with responsibilities are performing their required assignments?
- Is there information on the effectiveness of these activities?
- Is there evidence that institutional web accessibility has improved?
- Institutional web pages?
- Course materials?
- Purchased Software and other digital materials?
- Institutional systems (CMS, LMS, Administrative software etc….)?
Communication and marketing of the accessibility plan across campus and beyond (+)
- Does communication match (or exceed) that covered in the accessibility plan?
- Is the accessibility plan published and easy to find?
- Is there evidence that information about the plan is widely disseminated to all relevant parties?
- Those who will develop and oversee accessibility initiatives?
- Content Developers (i.e., faculty and staff)?
- Web Designers and Programmers?
- Others who will engage in the institution’s accessibility work?
- Consumers of the end product (i.e., those with disabilities)?
- Other members of the institution’s community (locals, alumni, student groups etc…)?
- Is information customized for the different groups? (see above)
- How many information streams are used to get the communication and marketing messages out (options include but are not limited to email, newsletters, reports, webpages)
- None?
- 1?
- 2-3?
- 4 or more?
- Is there evidence that information about the plan is disseminated to the appropriate parties in a timely manner?
- Is there evidence that information is updated and disseminated as necessary? (e.g. when there are changes to the plan, when technology or techniques evolve etc..)
- Is there evidence that these communications are effective in reaching their intended audiences?
- Is there documentation that the information provided is accurate and sufficient to help the different groups understand and perform their required tasks?
Data on web accessibility training for personnel (+)
- Is the training in line with (or better than) the accessibility plan?
- Visit Indicator 3 Benchmark D for more guidance on training
Documentation of implementation progress (+)
- Is there evidence that progress is monitored, tracked and reported over multiple aspects of the implementation plan? This can include:
- Budget blueprints
- Personnel activities
- Metrics and Milestone achievements
- Adherence to the timeline
- Marketing and Education plans
- Web Accessibility Outcomes
- Progress assessments
- Does it provide an understandable picture of the institution’s progress?
- Is progress in line with that laid out in the institution’s accessibility plan?
- Is there evidence of efforts to revise the plan or get back on schedule (as necessary)?
- Visit Indicator 4 Benchmark A for more guidance on Implementation progress
Documentation on the feedback from different levels of implementation (+)
- Do feedback collection systems follow (or exceed) those outlined in the accessibility plan?
- Are there feedback systems available for the different stakeholders? This should include:
- Members of the accessibility task force and others involved in developing and overseeing the accessibility plan
- Faculty and Staff who are charged with implementing accessibility
- Persons with disabilities who are accessing the institutional web and materials
- Is there documentation that the systems are publicized to the appropriate stakeholders?
- Are these promotions effective? Do the users know about the systems?
- Is there evidence that the systems are used by their stakeholder groups?
- How much are they being used?
- Are the stakeholder groups providing useful feedback?
- Is the feedback available for review?
- Is there documentation that the feedback is used to make changes to the plan and to address issues?
Indications of actions taken for nonconforming web content (+)
- Are the consequences for non-conformance published and widely publicized?
- Is there evidence that this information is adequately communicated to the appropriate stakeholders?
- Is there evidence that the institutional web accessibility policy is enforced?
- Is non-conformance tracked?
- Is there evidence that assistance is available to help those who are struggling to conform?
- Are issues tracked and used to help others?
- Is there evidence that consequences for non-conformance are consistently upheld and enforced?
- Are there records of assessments and actions taken?
- Are assessments and actions taken in line with the accessibility plan?
Web accessibility outcome data (+)
- Is there documentation of outcome data that has been collected?
- Is data collection ongoing?
- Does the collection of data meet (or exceed) that prescribed by the accessibility plan?
- Is the collected data compared to the expected outcomes
- Of the Institutional policy?
- Of the technical standard?
- Of plan milestones?
- Are the results of the outcome data used to make changes and alleviate issues?
- Visit Indicator 4 Benchmark B for more guidance on Outcome Data