Indicator #3: Resources and Support

An institution-wide web accessibility plan requires adequate resources and support. Administrators must provide the resources necessary to implement the web accessibility plan with provisions to ensure that the system is sustainable and will remain accessible.

Assessment Review Teams might see evidence for this commitment in any number of ways. Five Benchmarks support the adequacy of Resources and Support required for 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: Focus on 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 for a focus on personnel.

  • Position announcements for individuals that include requirements for accessibility experience or knowledge (+)

  • The presence of incentives and motivators for faculty and staff participation in accessibility efforts (+)

  • The collection of data on retention rates for personnel key to accessibility implementation (+)

Benchmark B: Sufficient Time and Effort Allocated to 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 sufficiency of time and effort.

  • The recognition of accessibility work in job descriptions and role statements (+)

  • The recognition of accessibility work in personnel time and effort reports (+)

  • The collection and use of feedback on the sufficiency of personnel allocation for web accessibility efforts (+)

Benchmark C: A Budget Sufficient for Institution-Wide Efforts

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 sufficiency of the budget.

  • Reports that specifically evaluate the sufficiency of available web accessibility resources (+)

  • A review of reports and statements monitoring the use of accessibility resources (+)

  • Feedback from key personnel and those involved in the implementation of the plan (+)

Benchmark D: Training and Technical Support

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 for the adequacy of training and technical support.

  • Trainings for faculty, staff, and students which occurs in conjunction with their expected accessibility roles (+)

  • Technical assistance and support that is available to, and used by, faculty, staff, and students (+)

  • The presence and use of materials necessary to support training, technical assistance, and implementation (+)

Benchmark E: The Procurement, Development, and Use of Technologies That Will Result in Accessible Web Content

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 commitment to accessible procurement.

  • Accessibility procurement language that is included in contracts, is consistent with the institutional standard, and used as part of the selection process for purchasing (+)

  • The existence and enforcement of accessibility requirements for course resources that are shared but originate from other institutions or organizations (+)

  • Products that are developed by the institution meets the institution's stated accessibility standard (+)