Evaluating Web Accessibility Efforts—A Guide for Accreditation Review Teams

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 for institutions.  However, those materials do not provide guidance for accreditation review teams on how to determine the quality of the evidence provided by an institution.

This document is a guide to help Accreditation Review Teams understand and evaluate institutional evidence of web accessibility efforts. These guidelines may also serve to assist institutions as they develop, review and enhance their reaffirmation materials.

Using this Document

Reviewers will be very familiar with the accreditation process and the ways in which an institution can provide evidence during reaffirmation. This document is laid out to support your efforts as a reviewer, should an institution include the work of web accessibility during accreditation or reaffirmation. It contains 4 institutional indicators aligned with successful enterprise-wide web accessibility. Each indicator is comprised of benchmark statements. Then each benchmark statement is broken into statements of evidence. Finally, we ask a few questions about the strength of the evidence that may be helpful, particularly if this is a new area for your review, or if you are unfamiliar with the complexities of institution-wide web accessibility.

It should be noted, that while several statements of evidence are provided for each benchmark, an institution would not need to demonstrate conformance to each statement to support adherence to a given benchmark. Moreover, the questions contained under each statement of evidence merely demonstrate the diversity with which institutions could respond. Since they are not necessarily the only options that could support an institutional claim of adherence, reviewers may want to consider other forms of evidence that support the key concept detailed at the benchmark level. However, broader evidence across the evidentiary statements outlined in each benchmark would help confirm an institution's accessibility efforts.

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. To minimize each list, simply click the (-) once the list is open.

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.

How to use this document

Benchmark A: The Commitment of Administrative Leadership

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • Administrative leadership begins with a vision and commitment toward change. Typically this vision, and its leadership support, stems from efforts made at top administrative levels within an institution. For some systems this would also include the institution's board of governors or trustees. Over time the leadership commitment results in the development and enforcement of an accessibility policy and plan, along with the necessary resources to implement them.

• An existing 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 included in publications that share broader institutional 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 administration creates and supports a web accessibility task force or institution-wide accessibility group (+)

  • Does the task force membership appear to represent a wide range of perspectives? This might include:
  • Those who will develop and oversee accessibility initiatives
  • Content Developers (e.g., faculty and staff)
  • Web Designers and Programmers
  • Others who will engage in the institution's accessibility work (e.g., Purchasing, HR)
  • Consumers of the end product (i.e., students or staff with disabilities)
  • Is there documentation that this group is charged to recommend or develop initiatives to promote and encourage web accessibility across the institution?
  • Is there documentation that the group is empowered and supported by the administration?
  • Is there evidence that the group is sustainable and ongoing?

• An existing institutional policy on web accessibility (+)

  • 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 has been endorsed by the governing board or trustees?
  • 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 existing institution-wide accessibility action plan (+)

  • If there is an Institutional Web Accessibility Policy, 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?
  • (Visit Indicator #2 Benchmark C for guidance on the components of a Web Accessibility Plan)

• The administration makes resources available for web accessibility efforts (+)

  • Is there is evidence of administrative commitment for resources available to web accessibility efforts, such as personnel time, materials or other resources, or budget?
  • 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)

• The administration advances the visibility, promotion, and communication of web accessibility efforts (+)

  • Are statements of the institution's vision, leadership, and commitment to web accessibility evident (e.g., published and widely available)?
  • Is there documentation of ongoing and consistent communication with faculty, staff, students, and the community outside the institution on web accessibility efforts? If yes, does the communication plan:
  • Reinforce the administration's commitment to the accessibility plan?
  • Inform stakeholders of their roles in the process?
  • Share status updates?
  • Include upcoming targets, timelines or goals?
  • Encourage feedback and discussion?
  • (Visit Indicator 2 Benchmark D for more on Communication)

Benchmark B: Relevant Stakeholder Participation

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • Including relevant personnel in the planning, implementation, and maintenance of web accessibility provides vital input, fosters ownership across stakeholders, and assists in sustaining the goal of an accessible web presence. Faculty, staff, and students should be included as stakeholders as they are involved in the development, maintenance or use of institutional web content. Stakeholder's knowledge and ownership of their roles is important, as each will likely have slightly different responsibilities in planning for and achieving overall accessibility. These responsibilities encompass wide-ranging behaviors, including technical staff who design accessible web pages, faculty who identify and upload accessible materials into course management tools, staff who create accessible documents intended for the web, procurement staff who ensure that institutional purchases meet the accessibility standard chosen by the institution, and individuals with disabilities who provide feedback on accessibility outcomes. The participation of all these diverse individuals is an important key for success and underscores the vision and commitment of leadership to the end goal of institution-wide accessibility.

• 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?
  • Institutional council?

• Institutional personnel are engaged in professional development that includes, or is focused on, web accessibility (+)

  • Is there documentation of training and professional development specific to expected roles and responsibilities so each may accomplish their part of institutional web accessibility?
  • Are the following personnel engaged in accessibility training opportunities:
  • Technical individuals (web developers and designers, IT professionals)
  • Faculty (both on campus and adjunct)
  • Staff (who create content that is uploaded onto the web)
  • Students (hired as employees)
  • Is there feedback that training is adequate and appropriate for its purpose of helping the participants fulfill their roles as the institution achieves web accessibility?
  • (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 they are aware of their responsibilities and equipped to perform web accessibility activities in their purview? This might been seen in the following:
  • Role statements
  • Training
  • Meeting Notes
  • Reports
  • 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 institution's web presence
  • Is there evidence that many different groups participate in the accessibility work of the institution? This would support a culture of expectation. 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

• Systems are available for individuals to provide feedback on the implementation and outcomes of web accessibility (+)

  • Is there documentation that supports multiple feedback systems for web accessibility? 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 on the amount of use these feedback 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?

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.

How to use this document

Benchmark A: The Inclusion of Key Personnel

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • Identifying and involving personnel who represent key constituent groups at your institution is essential during both the planning and implementation process. Key accessibility personnel may come from many departments or units and represent disability advocates as well as leaders representing technical, faculty, and staff positions. Administrators identify and include these individuals for input as the institution moves from planning to implementation and maintenance of an institution-wide accessible web presence.
  • The broader group of stakeholders should also be included as important feedback mechanisms to the web accessibility efforts. Stakeholders are those who are either end users of web content or those who will implement the institution-wide plan. This benchmark can be differentiated from that found in Indicator 1, as the administrative vision exerted to include a variety of stakeholders is different from the actual participation of key personnel representing different stakeholders throughout the process.

The development of the policy and the plan represent two separate bodies of evidence where an institution would include key personnel in the work of web accessibility. However, the properties that enhance the strength of evidence for each are similar. Therefore, we have combined the evidence for both policy and plan (the next two bullet points under the second bullet (“Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholder groups in the development of an institution-wide web accessibility plan”)*

• *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. (+)

  • 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 who have disabilities that impact web use?
  • 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)?

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

  • Is there documentation that a web accessibility committee comprised of key personnel led or monitored implementation efforts? (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 key personnel are assigned to ensure that the plan is on track and that the work being done conforms to the web accessibility standards as intended (i.e., as specified in either the policy or the plan)?
  • 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

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • A stated policy that provides specific guidelines and standards for web accessibility is necessary in order to ensure all administrators and stakeholders understand what is required of them. The web accessibility policy should appear in the same set of governing documents as other institution-wide policies, rather than as a separate unit. Once established, the institutional policy should be promoted and enforced.

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 on web accessibility include:

• A summary statement of the policy (+)

  • A summary statement may:
  • 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?

• Effective date(s) for 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 (+)

  • The scope may:
  • Explicitly identify which web content falls under the scope of the policy? Examples would include:
  • Public facing web pages (e.g. the institution's home page and informational pages)
  • Institutional Systems Content (e.g. registration, LMS, financial systems?)
  • Course materials
  • Distance Education
  • Legacy Pages
  • Student pages
  • Alumni pages
  • Community activity pages (e.g. athletics, fine arts, extension etc…)
  • 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?

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

  • Does the policy identify the technical standard to which all included web content must conform?
  • Is the technical standard recognized and sufficiently stringent to ensure functional web accessibility? (Information on choosing a technical standard)

• A provision for procurement, contracting, and collaborative resources (+)

  • The procurement specifications may:
  • Include a provision for procurement (i.e., purchase, license, or contract) for 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?

• 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 (+)

  • A review procedure may:
  • 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?

Benchmark C: A Comprehensive Written Accessibility Plan

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • An institution-wide effort requires a systematic plan of action. This plan includes strategies for all aspects of implementation including: goals, timelines, budgeting, materials, personnel, ongoing assessment, and, when necessary, revision of the plan. For institutions that require a business plan for use during cycles of continuous improvement, these elements can serve as the basis for a prospectus that includes concept, marketing, position and market analysis, financial planning, and implementation.

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 (+)

  • The summary might contain
  • A clear overview?
  • Benefits or market advantages?
  • Key points of the plan?
  • Important dates and milestones?
  • Stakeholder responsibilities?
  • Expected outcomes?

• A provision for benchmarking and market evaluation (+)

  • The plan could include
  • Provisions for evaluating websites of exemplar institutions and other relevant sites?
  • Strategies for comparing against best practice?
  • Methods of highlighting exemplars of good accessibility strategies?
  • Systems for identifying and avoiding accessibility pitfalls?

• A provision to gather baseline information (+)

  • Are there guidelines to
  • Conduct a baseline evaluation of the institutional web?
  • How much data will be collected (e.g., a 5% sample)?
  • Where it will be collected (e.g., across all parts of the institutional web)?
  • What data will be collected (e.g., pass/fail per page or detailed by standards and criteria used)?
  • How will it be gathered and analyzed (e.g., automated tools, manually, blended)?
  • Who is responsible to gather the baseline and on what timeline?
  • How the baseline data will be used in the future to evaluate accessibility progress and aid in necessary modifications?

• Identification of existing institutional challenges and risks (+)

  • Are there strategies for
  • 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?

• Identification of existing institutional priorities (+)

  • Does the plan identify
  • 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?

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

  • The plan might outline
  • 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?

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

  The plan should include
  • 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
  • A plan for assessing the adequacy of the budget?
  • If the budget is not sufficient, is there a strategy to help supplement or augment it?
  • Guidelines for responding to any significant budgetary changes?

• Metrics, milestones, and measurable steps (+)

  • Does the plan identify
  • 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?

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

  • Does the timeline provide
  • 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?

• 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 including additional duties such as meetings of the web accessibility team, inter-disciplinary coordination, and training?

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

  • The plan might outline
  • Mechanisms for educating, training, and support of those who will be involved in the web accessibility plan?
  • Those who will develop and oversee accessibility initiatives?
  • Content developers (i.e., faculty, staff, and student employees)?
  • Web designers and programmers?
  • Others who will engage in the institution's accessibility work or with specialized roles or responsibilities?
  • Decisions for how training will occur?
  • Will it be embedded in existing training events?
  • Will it be new specialized training programs?
  • Will it be a hybrid of new and existing schedules?

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

  • The plan might include
  • 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)?
  • A specification that all feedback will be used in a timely manner to improve web accessibility outcomes and processes?
  • An outline of how these mechanisms will be publicized
  • Published outlines of how feedback is solicited
  • An outline of how feedback summaries will be publicized
  • Provisions for utilizing feedback data in an ongoing and dynamic way?

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

  • The plan might specify
  • Details such as how the plan will be monitored?
  • Who will do the monitoring?
  • A schedule for when the monitoring will take place?
  • What will be monitored?

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

  • The plan should include
  • 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?

Benchmark D: The Implementation of the Written Plan

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • Once the accessibility policy and plan are in place, administrators and others put that plan into action, ensuring it stays on track by continually monitoring and assessing its progress.

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

  • Do the meetings address implementation of items outlined in the accessibility plan?
  • Do the meeting notes serve as their purpose a record of progress for the institution's plan?

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

  • Does collection of the baseline documentation follow (or exceed) what was included in the accessibility plan? 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.
  • Are baseline information or reference points available?
  • Do reports or evaluations provide enough information to be able to measure progress from the baseline levels noted?

• 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?
  • Will this budget help the institution engage in their current phase of web accessibility efforts (e.g., plan, implement, sustain)?
  • 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?

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

  • If communication and marketing are included in the written plan, do actions match (or exceed) what is covered in the written plan?
  • Other issues to consider whether communication is included in the written plan or not:
  • 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)
  • Are multiple information streams are used to get the communication and marketing messages out? (options include but are not limited to email, newsletters, reports, webpages)
  • Is there documentation that the information provided helps 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?
  • Is there evidence (through training dates, personnel involved, or evaluations) that training was offered to differing groups of relevant personnel in line with the plan?
  • Visit Indicator 3 Benchmark D for more guidance on training

• Documentation of implementation progress (+)

  • Is there evidence that progress of the implementation plan is tracked? These could be found in reports or other documents including:
  • Implementation Reports
  • Metrics and Milestone achievements
  • Results from Benchmarking Tools
  • Adherence to the timeline
  • Marketing and Education communications
  • Web Accessibility Outcomes
  • Does it provide an understandable picture of the institution's progress with the plan?
  • Is progress in line with that laid out in the institution's accessibility plan?
  • 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?
  • 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 as part of the policy or plan widely known?
  • Is there evidence that the institutional web accessibility policy is enforced?
  • Is non-conformance identified across the institution's web presence?
  • 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 that outcome data (i.e., the actual web accessibility of institutional pages) 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

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.

How to use this document

Benchmark A: Focus on Personnel

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • An effective plan cannot be carried out without personnel who have the expertise to implement it. Make sure you focus on hiring, retaining, and supporting personnel at all levels who will help your institution attain its accessibility goals. For example you need to have technical individuals, and those with special responsibilities, to implement the web accessibility plan. Moreover, typical faculty and staff have multiple responsibilities that require their time and attention. Therefore, it is important to provide them with clear and helpful information, sufficient time and support, and the motivation or incentives to ensure that they give the accessibility work in the plan the necessary attention.

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

  • Is web accessibility knowledge or experience explicitly stated in technical position announcements?
  • Do the announcements specify a level of skill or experience with web accessibility?
  • Do all technical announcements include web accessibility?
  • Are web accessibility expectations included in announcements for other relevant personnel as appropriate to their role? e.g.:
  • Administrators who will support web accessibility efforts across the institution?
  • Faculty who will identify and upload accessible materials into course management tools?
  • Staff who will create accessible documents intended for the web?
  • Staff who will ensure that institutional purchases meet the accessibility standard?

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

  • Is there documentation of institutional incentives for those participating in web accessibility work? These can include:
  • Recognition of individuals/groups/departments for compliance or exceeding requirements?
  • Inclusion of web accessibility work in promotion and tenure portfolios?
  • Other extrinsic rewards (e.g. bonuses, products, award dinners etc...)
  • Sanctions if work does not comply with requirements or is not achieved in a reasonable time with support and assistance?

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

  • Is there documentation on the retention rates for key accessibility personnel? These can include:
  • Web accessibility task force committee members
  • Web developers
  • Procurement specialists
  • Those who train faculty and staff in web accessibility practice
  • Is there documentation of efforts made to retain key accessibility personnel?
  • Is there information that retention data is used to improve retention of key personnel?
  • To make adjustments to the accessibility plan?
  • To understand and identify problems?
  • To improve retention of key accessibility personnel?
  • Is there documentation on steps taken to ensure that essential knowledge or understanding of the plan is retained during personnel transitions?

Benchmark B: Sufficient Time and Effort Allocated to Personnel

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • The process to move to an accessible web presence takes time. Both the time and effort required for this work should be identified when allocating faculty and staff responsibilities.

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

  • Is web accessibility included in all relevant job descriptions and role statements?
  • Is the web accessibility work outlined in job descriptions or role statements appropriate to the efforts that are expected of the individual?
  • Administrators who will support web accessibility efforts across the institution?
  • Faculty who will identify and upload accessible materials into course management tools?
  • Technical staff who will be involved in designing accessible web pages?
  • Staff who will create accessible documents intended for the web?
  • Staff who will ensure that institutional purchases meet the accessibility standard?
  • Individuals with disabilities who will provide feedback on the outcomes?
  • Do all appropriate job descriptions and role statements include web accessibility?
  • Less than a third?
  • Between one third and two thirds?
  • More than two thirds?

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

  • Is web accessibility reflected in the relevant staff's time and effort reports? e.g.:
  • Web developers?
  • Disability support personnel?
  • Purchasing?
  • Human resources?
  • Sponsored programs?
  • Faculty?
  • Staff?
  • Training personnel?

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

  • Is there evidence that feedback on personnel allocation was requested during the development stages of the web accessibility plan?
  • Was feedback collected from a variety of stakeholder groups?
  • Was that feedback used to inform the web accessibility plan?
  • Is there documentation of feedback systems in place to determine if personnel allocation is sufficient to conform to the accessibility plan?
  • Is feedback collected from all impacted stakeholder groups?
  • Web developers?
  • Disability support personnel?
  • Purchasing?
  • Human resources?
  • Sponsored programs?
  • Faculty?
  • Staff?
  • Training personnel?
  • Is there evidence that feedback on personnel time and effort is used to ensure adequate allocations for the plan?

Benchmark C: A Budget Sufficient for Institution-Wide Efforts

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • Administration should take financial requirements into account when developing the written accessibility plan and design budgets accordingly. Necessary materials, licenses, equipment, personnel, and training should be considered. The funding necessary to sustain accessibility of the system should also be factored into the budget.

• Feedback or reporting that outline the sufficiency of available web accessibility resources (+)

  • Is there evidence that feedback is collected from key personnel and those involved in the implementation of the plan?
  • Is feedback (e.g. email, reports, meeting minutes) available on the sufficiency of web accessibility resources?
  • Does the feedback cover key resources needed for the plan to succeed? This might include budget or resources such as
  • Personnel time and effort
  • Training
  • Technical assistance and support to staff
  • Necessary equipment, licenses, materials, startup costs etc…
  • Are the reports used to make adjustments?
  • To the web accessibility plan?
  • To the budget?
  • Is there evidence that evaluations and adjustments to the budget are sustained and ongoing?

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

  • Is there documentation that web accessibility resources are monitored?
  • Is there evidence that feedback data collection is sustained and ongoing?
  • Is the information used to adjust the budget as necessary?

Benchmark D: Training and Technical Support

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • All personnel (i.e., faculty and staff) should be provided with the knowledge, support, and materials they require to carry out their roles in implementing institution-wide web accessibility.

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

  • Is there documentation that web accessibility training is offered for different groups who have a role in web accessibility? Examples would include:
  • Administrators who support web accessibility efforts across the institution.
  • Technical staff who are 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.
  • Accessibility leads who provide support and training for others.

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

  • Are technical assistance and supports available to those who are part of the institution's work on web accessibility? (This may be formally documented, advertised, or just part of IT help desk functions)
  • Do the supports occur in various forms? Examples include:
  • Professional development workshops?
  • Conferences?
  • Help Lines?
  • An on campus Help Center?
  • Consultants?
  • Communities of practice or discussion forums?
  • Is there evidence that those that need technical assistance know that it is available?
  • Is there evidence that technical assistance is being used by those involved in web accessibility?

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

  • What types of supports are available to those who will provide training and technical assistance to others? Examples might include:
  • Opportunities for their own training?
  • Opportunities for their own technical assistance?
  • Technical resources?
  • Accessibility evaluators?
  • Assistive technologies used for testing?
  • A technology lab that can be used to test for accessibility?
  • Is there evidence (via documentation or discussion) that feedback is periodically solicited from this group of individuals regarding the sufficiency of the resources they have to conduct their duties (i.e., train and support others in web accessibility).
  • Are materials tailored to support different levels of knowledge and different personnel roles?
  • Is there evidence that those involved in web accessibility activities have utilized the materials?
  • Is there any information that indicates that trainers and technical support personnel find that the materials are sufficient and useful?

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

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • To create and maintain an accessible web architecture, personnel should choose tools that possess or render accessible web content. Failing to procure or develop accessible technologies perpetuates new and existing problems. A strong procurement policy, with language included in contracts, helps ensure that personnel use the institution's resources wisely and that products are purchased in line with institution-wide web accessibility efforts. This includes programs such as open source, shareware, and freeware that don't go through the traditional procurement process.

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

  • Is there documentation that accessibility language is included in procurement contracts and requests from vendors?
  • Does the language include the institution's chosen technical standard to be met?
  • Do all types of digital product and service requests and contracts include an accessibility requirement? Examples would include
  • Content creation and delivery tools.
  • Authoring tools.
  • Course management tools.
  • Student registration and financial tools.
  • Campus financial and human resource tools.
  • Other acquisitions that that don't go through the traditional procurement process (e.g. open source, shareware, and freeware).
  • Is there documentation that accessibility is a factor in purchasing decisions?
  • Are there mechanisms to evaluate and ensure the vendor's accessibility claims?
  • When accessible products are not available is there documentation the institution purchases products that conform closest to the institutional standard?
  • Is there documentation that in cases when the institution purchased a product or service that did not meet their accessibility standard, did they require that the vendor improve the product over time?

• Accessibility requirements for course resources that are shared but originate from other institutions or organizations (+)

  • Is there documentation that the institution's technical accessibility standard is required when the institution engages others in shared content and teaching (e.g., signs a collaborative agreement for online learning by another institution) ?
  • Is the requirement applied consistently across all collaborative agreements?

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

  • Do web products developed by the institution, or in conjunction with the institution conform to (or exceed) the institution's technical standard?

Indicator #4: Assessment

Ongoing assessment is necessary to ensure that your web accessibility plan is working and on track. Processes must be in place to measure progress, constituent satisfaction, and outcomes. This information is then used to help determine the sustainability of the current efforts and make improvements to the overall program.

Assessment Review Teams might see evidence of assessment in a number of ways. Three Benchmarks illustrate the Assessment Necessary 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.

How to use this document

Benchmark A: Evaluation of Implementation Progress

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • Provisions are made to ensure that the plan is implemented as intended (e.g., scope, training and support of staff, timelines). Progress is monitored and evaluated to ascertain if implementation is occurring at predicted levels, and that alterations in planned implementation are identified and communicated.

• The collection and analysis of data or information of an institution's progress within the implementation process (+)

  • Is information collected on the institution's progress in implementing the accessibility plan?
  • Are key components of the plan included in data collection and analysis?
  • Does the process of evaluating the implementation include whether or not milestones are being met by dates set by the institution?

• Formal reports on the progress of the intended implementation plan (+)

  • Does the institution create formal reports on implementation progress?
  • Do the reports detail information from a variety of sources or viewpoints?
  • Are the reports communicated to the intended audiences?

• Informal summaries or communications on the progress of the implementation plan (+)

  • Are there mechanisms in place to share informal information on the progress of the institution-wide implementation (e.g., through email, meeting minutes, short summaries or other correspondence?)
  • Is there any evidence that this informal information is used to resolve problems before they become critical?

Benchmark B: Evaluation of Web Accessibility Outcomes

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • No plan or policy is useful if it does not result in the intended outcome. Those tasked by the institution to improve web accessibility must periodically monitor and evaluate its status to determine if it is meeting the institution-wide web accessibility standard. Because automated web accessibility tools don't provide a complete assessment picture, key accessibility personnel should include manual checks in their evaluation plans. As technology and standards change over time, it is also important that the institution determine if the stated outcome is sufficient or if alterations could bring it more in line with current standards and practices.

• Institutional web accessibility data (+)

  • Is there documentation that the actual web accessibility of institutional pages is collected and analyzed?
  • Is accessibility being assessed to the institutional standard?
  • Is there representation across different parts of institutional web?
  • Is the sample of adequate size and diversity to make a determination?
  • Do data collection methods include both automated and manual checking (i.e., some elements can't be detected automatically, thus manual checking is strongly advised as part of the evaluation)?
  • Is data collection ongoing?

• Institutional reports containing web accessibility data or summaries (+)

  • Does the institution create reports, or summaries contained in other reports, that represent periodic institutional accessibility data as it is collected?

• Reports from external evaluations of web accessibility (not necessary at all institutions) (+)

  • If there was there a review or accessibility audit by external reviewers (e.g., may include peer institutions, web accessibility groups, or consultants), do reports detail institutional status on actual web accessibility?

• Correspondence describing accessibility outcomes (+)

  • Is there any informal or formal correspondence between administrators, key personnel or stakeholders regarding accessibility data or outcomes?

Benchmark C: Assessment Results Are Used To Improve Institutional Accessibility

• Read about this benchmark (+)
  
  
  • Data gathered from evaluations of both the process and the outcomes of web accessibility are of little value unless they are used to improve and inform what is to happen in the future. Those tasked by the institution to improve web accessibility use ongoing oversight and review data sources continually to revise procedures to ensure the institution can create and maintain institution-wide web accessibility. These same data can be used for future changes in institutional policy.

• Reports that reflect recommendations for change (+)

  • Are documents available that recommend changes or actions based on assessments and data collected?
  • Note: These documents can be recorded in a range of formats including reports, meeting minutes, or correspondence
  • Is there evidence that information used in the reports came from a variety of sources?
  • Do recommended changes or actions target different aspects of institutional web accessibility? Examples of different aspects could include the following:
  • Policy
  • Plan Components.
  • Scope.
  • Benchmarking.
  • Communications.
  • Budget.
  • Personnel.
  • Training and Support.
  • Timelines and Metrics.
  • Outcomes.
  • Assessments.
  • Process

• Documentation that describes how data sources inform institutional efforts (+)

  • If the institution is in a phase before data collection has begun or is between data cycles, is there documentation on how data sources will inform efforts once data is collected?