Recommended Practice Indicators for Institutional Web Accessibility

Below is a document of institutional indicators, benchmarks, and evidence helpful for planning and evaluation purposes. It includes 4 statements that, if present at a campus level, would "indicate" an institutional climate that can foster and maintain web accessibility efforts. Each of these indicators is defined by a series of benchmarks and each benchmark has examples of the types of evidence an institution would have if they attained a particular benchmark.

This document is intended for strategic planning of new accessibility efforts, or for self-study and continuous improvement of existing efforts. GOALS is using these indicators now as the basis for a web-based tool for institutional self-study and reporting. They are seeking field test sites for this tool during 2012. If interested please contact GOALS director Cyndi Rowland at cyndi@cpd2.usu.edu.

Table of Contents

• Overview
• Indicator #1: Institutional Vision and Leadership Commitment
  • Benchmark A: Commitment of Administrative Leadership
  • Benchmark B: Relevant Stakeholder Participation
• Indicator #2: Planning and Implementation
  • Benchmark A: Inclusion of Key Personnel
  • Benchmark B: Comprehensive Accessibility POLICY
  • Benchmark C: Comprehensive Written Accessibility Plan
  • Benchmark D: Implementation of the Written PLAN
• Indicator #3: Resources and Support
  • Benchmark A: Sufficient Time and Effort Allocated to Personnel
  • Benchmark B: Focus on Personnel
  • Benchmark C: Budget Sufficient to Meet Stated PLAN
  • Benchmark D: Training and Technical Support
  • Benchmark E: Procurement, Development, and Use of Technologies That Will Result in Accessible Web Content
• Indicator #4: Assessment
  • Benchmark A: Evaluation of Progress on the Institutional Implementation
  • Benchmark B: Evaluation of Web Accessibility Outcomes
  • Benchmark C: Assessment Results Are Used To Improve Institutional Accessibility
• Acknowledgments

Indicator #1: Institutional Vision and Leadership Commitment

Back to Top

Institution-wide web accessibility is best attained, and sustained, when there is leadership to support an enterprise-wide vision and commitment toward accessibility. This support should come from leadership at many levels including an institution’s governing board, campus administrators, and key personnel. Each must actively support, participate, and take ownership in the work and outcomes of accessibility.

Back to Top

Administrative leadership begins when there is a vision and commitment toward change. Typically this vision, and its leadership support, stems from efforts made at top administrative levels including the institution’s board of governors or trustees. Over time the leadership commitment results in development and enforcement of an accessibility policy and plan and the necessary resources to implement them.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

A statement of vision or commitment:

A statement of the system’s or institution’s vision or commitment to web accessibility is published and made readily available. Those with a vested interest in the institution know the vision and commitment to web accessibility. To the extent feasible, relevant stakeholders are made aware of their responsibilities under this vision. This may take the form of a letter, email, or memo from the responsible source, such as the Board of Regents, or the Office of the President or Chancellor. At times this content is also posted to the web.

The creation and maintenance of an accessibility task force or institution-wide accessibility group

Institutional leadership is provided to establish an accessibility task force or advisory group. The group is typically charged to oversee changes to the institutional accessibility climate and tasked to develop and enact, or recommend, accessibility initiatives. This group ensures that relevant stakeholders provide input and that multiple perspectives are present in the planning and development of enterprise-wide accessibility efforts.

The creation of an institutional policy on web accessibility

The institution has a published policy on web accessibility. This policy defines the standard to which the institutional web pages will adhere. (Sample components for a comprehensive policy are detailed in indicator #2). It is anticipated that institution-wide policies such as this also appears in documents across the institution (e.g., employee handbooks, student government guidelines, faculty senate rules). Ideally, institutional web accessibility policy would stem from governing boards (Trustees, Board of Regents) however, when this is not the case, institutions will need to enact local policies.

The creation of an enterprise-wide accessibility action plan

Institutional leadership has an established plan detailing how they will meet their vision for accessibility as stated in their policy. This includes both current and future accessibility efforts. This plan should be directly linked to the strategic goals of an institution. This plan can be stand alone or part of a full business prospectus. (Sample components for an implementation plan are detailed in indicator #2.)

Resources are available for web accessibility efforts

Members of leadership (i.e., governing boards, institutional leaders) plan for and commit the necessary resources to ensure the success of their action plan. This includes resources of time, money, materials, and personnel.

Visibility, promotion, and communication of web accessibility efforts

Statements regarding the institution’s vision, leadership, and commitment to web accessibility are evident. Ongoing communication about the plan and the administration’s dedication to it reinforces its importance and keeps the message from being lost. The target audience includes faculty, staff, students, and the community outside the institution.

Back to Top

Including relevant personnel in the planning, implementation, and maintenance of web accessibility helps gather vital input necessary for success, fosters ownership across stakeholders, and assists in sustaining the goal of an accessible web presence. Faculty, staff, and students are indeed stakeholders as they are involved in the development, maintenance or use of institutional web content. Stakeholder knowledge and ownership of their role is important, as each will likely have different responsibilities in promoting overall accessibility. Stakeholders might include 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, and individuals with disabilities who provide feedback on the outcomes. The participation of all these diverse individuals is key to success and is one metric of the vision and commitment of leadership to the end goal of enterprise-wide accessibility.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

An array of accessibility stakeholders participate in strategic planning and continuous improvement

In order to ensure that plans are created and sustained with the needs of many different groups in mind, many different stakeholders to participate in the development of the plan, to provide feedback, and to be fully involved in its implementation. This can be done at a committee or individual level. Stakeholders that commonly participate in enterprise-wide web accessibility planning include; staff from administrative units, central IT, student services, the disability resource office, representative faculty and staff members, accessibility specialists, and individuals with disabilities. At times individuals from risk management, procurement offices, sponsored programs, human resources, or university council are also invited participants.

Personnel engage in professional development that includes or is focused on web accessibility

Evidence of institutional vision for sustained accessibility can, in part, be found in systems of training and professional development nurtured by those in leadership. Faculty, staff, and technology specialists are provided with, and take advantage of, the training necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. As technology changes and the role of the personnel change, provision is made to ensure that they maintain the required level of knowledge and skills so they may respond with accessible products.

Faculty, staff and students take responsibility for web accessibility outcomes within their purview

Stakeholders understand their unique roles and responsibilities with respect to developing and maintaining an accessible web presence and are empowered to fulfill those responsibilities. Those in leadership have created a culture where there are expectations for the fulfillment of these unique responsibilities. This can be documented through role statements, evidence of training, and mechanisms for accessibility feedback from students and staff with disabilities.

Systems are present for individuals to provide feedback on the implementation and outcomes of web accessibility

Those in leadership sanction the creation of feedback systems so that stakeholders are encouraged to provide opinions on progress and implementation of the accessibility plan. Consumers of the institution’s web site have a mechanism to report on the accessibility of institutional web pages that they visit.

Indicator #2: Planning and Implementation

Back to Top

Web accessibility requires strategic planning. Policies and procedures are established and a systematic plan for accessibility is developed, instituted, and carried out across the organization.

Back to Top

Identifying and using key personnel is essential throughout the entire process of planning and implementation. Key personnel (e.g., advocates, advisors, technical staff, faculty leaders, and staff) are identified and included as the institution moves from planning to implementation to maintenance of an enterprise-wide accessible web presence. (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.)

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholders in development of the enterprise-wide web accessibility plan

Key personnel are included in the development of an accessibility plan. Personnel help to promote buy-in and provide valuable insight and information to ensure that all contingencies have been considered.

Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholders in policy development

Key personnel are also included in the development of the accessibility policy. Key stakeholders promote buy-in and provide input that can help make the policy understandable and approachable to those who will be expected to conform to it.

Involvement of key accessibility personnel and stakeholders in the implementation of enterprise-wide web accessibility

Key personnel are assigned to oversee and/or implement parts of the plan. They can also act to monitor its progress. Assignments are made 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. All efforts are made to help departments and personnel meet the requirements set forth in the policy. It is not uncommon for an institution to identify one individual who will have a significant role, including significant time and effort, to act as the Chair of the institution’s web accessibility committee comprised of key personnel. In this model, they report on progress to the committee in regular intervals.

Back to Top

A stated policy that provides specific guidelines and standards for web accessibility is necessary in order to ensure that everyone understands what is required of them. The web accessibility policy appears in the same set of governing documents as other enterprise-wide policies, rather than as a separate unit. Once established, the institutional policy is promoted and enforced.

Evidence of a comprehensive policy may include:

A summary statement of policy

The policy provides a summary that explicitly states the rationale for the policy, expected outcomes, when key steps are to be completed, and how these steps are to be achieved.

Effective date(s)

The date the policy comes into effect is stated. For institutions with a phased implementation of policy, multiple dates, deadlines, or interim dates for each aspect of the plan may appear.

The scope of the POLICY

Web content that falls under the scope of this policy is defined and included (e.g., are students' pages included or exempt? Does the policy apply to all content under the institutional domain? What about any institutional content that is not under the main domain?). If the institution exempts legacy pages, they are defined or identified. Any exceptions to the policy, and those who can authorize exceptions, are identified and a process for obtaining exemptions is described.

A technical standard

A technical standard provides the institutional criterion for accessibility and as such is included in the policy. The stated standard helps staff members understand if their web content is in compliance with the policy of the institution or not.

A provision for procurement

Accessibility will be a determining factor in all purchases and requests for proposals or agreements. Procurement of accessible goods and services, in line with the stated policy, is expressly included in the policy. Accessible goods and services include any contracts for goods or services that will impact the institutional web including; 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, and products developed by the institution.

Consequences for non-conformance to the POLICY

Statements are included that detail consequences when the policy is not followed unless there are other documents that describe consequences for non-conformance to similar institutional policies.

Mechanisms for ongoing review

Changes over time may require that the institution's accessibility policy be periodically reviewed to assess the appropriateness of current measures and make adjustments as necessary. A defined system for review and revision, along with provisions for who is responsible for these decisions is included in the policy.

Back to Top

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, these elements can serve as the basis for a prospectus which includes concept, marketing, position and market analysis, financial planning, and implementation.

Evidence of a comprehensive accessibility plan may include:

Business Concept

An executive summary or statement of concept of the PLAN

A summary of the plan is available which provides an overview of the statement of concept that includes potential benefits and market advantages to the institution (i.e., the business purpose of the plan) key points, dates, stakeholder responsibilities and expected outcomes.

Position and Market Analysis

A provision for benchmarking and market evaluation

Websites of peer institutions and other enterprises are evaluated and reviewed in order to assess where an institution's web accessibility stands in relation to other enterprises. These evaluations are also used to provide exemplars of both good accessibility strategies and accessibility pitfalls to be avoided.

A provision to gather baseline information

A baseline assessment of the accessibility of institutional web content against the technical standard is taken to provide critical data that will be used to evaluate outcomes of implementation and aid in necessary modifications.

Identification of existing institutional challenges and risks

Challenges to implementing web accessibility across the institution are identified. Problems may involve resistance to change by some groups, limited personnel with an understanding of web accessibility, or financial constraints. Identification of potential problems and possible solutions are incorporated into the accessibility plan.

Identification of existing institutional priorities

Web accessibility goals fit into many institutional priorities. Examples include the redesign of the campus web site, training initiatives for faculty and staff, and hiring exceptional employees. Institutional priorities that are a good fit for the work of web accessibility are identified to leverage existing initiatives that can promote successful accessibility implementation.

Marketing

A process to communicate and market the PLAN to the campus and other communities

All relevant stakeholders are informed of the institutional effort and given sufficient information to understand their role in the process. This may be accomplished through orientation meetings, institutional memos, email, or campus-wide newsletters.

Financial

A provision for budget items appropriate to accomplish the PLAN

An adequate budget is established to support the accessibility plan. Provisions are made for the necessary funding for items such as personnel time and effort, training, materials, and licenses or equipment.

Implementation

Metrics, milestones, and measurable steps

Implementation goals are expressed in measurable steps. Expectations are made explicit so that key stakeholders better understand what is required for conformance to the plan. A set of benchmarks or metrics help an institution set goals and assist stakeholders in understanding what is expected of them.

Timeline

Timelines are set for measurable steps throughout the process. Step-wise checks help stakeholders manage their responsibilities and provide an additional measure of understanding. The timeline is developed so that the target dates are achievable and they work in conjunction with established deadlines for conformance. Periodic assessment of timeline and goals are set to help the plan stay on track.

Assignment of specific responsibilities

Elements of the plan that are critical are assigned to those individuals with the expertise to carry out specific responsibilities. Sufficient time and resources are allocated for these personnel to accomplish assigned responsibilities.

Training plan for staff, faculty and students

Mechanisms for educating and supporting those who will be part of the change to accessibility are included in the plan. The plan details how individuals will receive the training and support they will need so they may do what is expected of them (e.g., is accessibility embedded into existing training or is a new specialized training created?). Additional and ongoing support is available for those with technical or special responsibilities under the plan.

Plan to obtain and use feedback enterprise-wide

There is a mechanism to gather and use data and feedback from both the consumers of web content (e.g. faculty, staff, and students with disabilities who are using institutional web content) as well as those who are expected to implement the accessibility plan (e.g. staff, faculty, technology staff, procurement officers, human resource staff).

Plan to monitor progress of accessibility outcomes

Oversight is included in the accessibility plan. Details (e.g., who, when, what) are specified to monitor accessibility outcomes over time to help the efforts stay on track.

Explicit strategy to evaluate and revise the plan in an ongoing way

Once the objectives for web accessibility have been achieved, provisions are made to ensure that the institution maintains (or improves) that level of accessibility. Provisions are also made to address changes in technology and evolving standards and procedures as they happen. These assessments occur at regular intervals and data are used to revise the current plan and address emerging needs.

Back to Top

Once the accessibility policy and plan are in place, administrators and others put that plan into action. Ongoing assessment and monitoring of progress is used to ensure the plan is on track. Attention is also paid to changes in technology and trends that may disrupt the plan or change the requirements of accessibility.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Meeting minutes of the accessibility team/task force

Minutes and discussions of the accessibility team or task force serve as a record of the implementation and commitment to progress of the institution to enterprise-wide web accessibility.

Documentation of baseline information

Baseline information can include reports and evaluations on the current status of accessibility of an institution's web pages, personnel's training in and understanding of web accessibility, the accessibility status of equipment and software currently used by the institution, and analyses of enterprise-wide challenges and priorities.

Budget and committed effort for sustained web accessibility

A commitment of resources and personnel effort to plan, implement, and sustain enterprise-wide web accessibility is included in the budget. Specific items include faculty and staff time commitments (e.g., faculty role statements, dedication of staff time and effort), and infrastructure needs (e.g., purchase of software necessary for testing or consultants to aid in training).

Campus communications and marketing of the Accessibility PLAN

The institutional accessibility plan and information on its progress is disseminated to ensure that those in the campus community know about and understand their responsibilities. Dissemination can be done through a variety of media including emails, newsletters, reports, a dedicated webpage, and even campus radio.

Data on training personnel

Training of all relevant personnel is planned and performed. Training can be implemented in a variety of different ways. Documentation data can include: the dates of training, number of trainings, number of personnel trained, types of trainings, and training evaluations.

Statements and/or reports on implementation progress

Existing records can document and track the progress of the implementation plan. These may include documentation on budget, metrics, milestones, and progress reports.

Documentation on feedback from different levels of implementation

Feedback from both end-users (faculty, students, and staff with disabilities) and the personnel involved in implementation of the accessibility plan are used as resources for assessment and improvement of the plan and enterprise-wide web accessibility outcomes. Methods of feedback collection include surveys, mechanisms for reporting problems within specific web pages, periodic evaluations, and staff reports.

Indications of actions taken for non-conforming content

The accessibility plan is enforced. Appropriate and consistent action is taken for non-conformance as outlined in the policy. Records of assessment and action taken are maintained.

Web accessibility outcome data

Periodic evaluations and checks are made to ensure that the web accessibility outcomes are obtained at expected levels (e.g., per the institutional policy and stated technical standard).

Indicator #3: Resources and Support

Back to Top

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

Back to Top

The process of conversion into an accessible web presence takes time. Both the time and effort required are identified when allocating faculty and staff responsibilities.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Accessibility work is recognized on role statements and is reflected in personnel time and effort.

The duties and responsibilities of institutional personnel with regard to web accessibility are a part of their role statements or job descriptions. For some roles, these increased expectations will require additional time and effort to achieve. Therefore, the time necessary to carry out those requirements is included as part of their allocated time and effort.

Feedback on sufficiency of personnel allocation

Feedback is obtained during both the planning and implementation stages of the web accessibility plan to ensure that personnel resources are considered and adequately allocated. Periodic review of staff and faculty time allocations are performed to ascertain whether the current allocations are appropriate.

Back to Top

The best plan in the world is worthless without the personnel with expertise to implement it. Finding and retaining key accessibility personnel is essential. Moreover, typical staff and faculty often have a great number of responsibilities that require their time and attention. Therefore, it is important to provide them with motivation or incentives to ensure that the plan is given the necessary attention.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Position announcements that include requirements for accessibility experience or knowledge for web development personnel or others as appropriate

The institution includes the need for accessibility knowledge and skills in the competitive process of new hires. Minimum employment requirements include web accessibility for critical job roles such as web developers or other technical staff. Other job descriptions may include the requirement to participate in the institutional effort of web accessibility.

Presence of incentives and motivators for participation in accessibility efforts

Incentives are present to help ensure that web accessibility gets the necessary attention from faculty and staff. Incentives can take the form of rewards or recognition (e.g., considering accessibility work to be included in promotion and tenure portfolios; staff recognitions for creation of accessible content), or sanctions if their work does not comply with requirements or is not achieved in a reasonable time with support and assistance.

Data on retention rates for personnel key to accessibility implementation

Every effort is made to retain key personnel in order to maintain continuity and momentum of the plan. Steps are taken to ensure that essential knowledge or understanding of the plan is not lost in transitions and that the loss of key individuals does not affect the plan's timeline while new personnel are hired or trained. Institutional knowledge of retention data are used to aid in adjustments to the plan and to promote improved retention of key personnel over time.

Back to Top

Financial requirements are taken into account when developing the accessibility plan and budgeted accordingly. Necessary materials, licenses and equipment, personnel, and training are considered. The funding necessary to sustain accessibility of the system is also factored into the budget.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Feedback on sufficiency of budget allocation

Feedback, or reporting on the plan, includes comments on the adequacy of allocations for time and effort to support key accessibility personnel, training and technical assistance, any necessary equipment, licenses, and materials, and the provision for sustainability and ongoing support for web accessibility.

Back to Top

The knowledge, support, and materials necessary to ensure that personnel are able to fulfill their parts of the accessibility plan are made available.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Documentation that training of faculty, staff, and students occurs in conjunction with expected accessibility roles

Personnel (e.g., faculty, staff, and procurement specialists) have the training necessary to achieve their role in web accessibility.

Technical assistance and support is available to, and used by, faculty, staff, and students

Beyond training, provisions are made to aid personnel who may need assistance or advice as they work to perform their responsibilities. Provisions are made to ensure that there are necessary supports for personnel at all levels. This support occurs in various forms, such as professional development via selected conferences, focused technical assistance, consultants, and involvement in communities of practice or discussion forums. Support does not need to be hierarchical: fellow practitioners and peers can be a valuable source of information and ideas.

Presence of materials necessary to support training, technical assistance, and implementation

Those charged with the duties to provide training and support to personnel are given the necessary materials or their own technical support. Materials can include training and other technical resources, accessibility evaluators, assistive technologies used for testing, or the creation of a technology lab that can be used to test for accessibility. Periodic consultation or leadership training in teaching others principles of web accessibility are employed as necessary.

Back to Top

To create and maintain accessible web architecture, the tools used by the institution must render content that is accessible. Failure to procure, or develop, accessible technologies will perpetuate the need to fix accessibility problems introduced by others. A strong procurement policy, with language added into contracts, helps to ensure that the institution is using its resources wisely and purchasing goods and services that are in line with institutional efforts. This includes the acquisition of programs and resources such as open source, shareware, and freeware that do not go through the traditional procurement process.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Accessibility procurement language included in contracts is consistent with the institutional standard

Contracts for goods or services that will impact the institutional web site include a requirement that the vendor conform to the institution's standard for web accessibility. For example: If the institution's technical accessibility standard is Section 508, then a contract to purchase or lease a course management tool, or a fiscal management tool, would require that the vendor guarantee that the product minimally conforms to Section 508 specifications (i.e., the institutional standard). Accessibility procurement requirements are used as a factor in purchasing decisions, and provisions are in place to evaluate and ensure the vendor's accessibility claims. When accessible products are not available, every attempt is made to purchase that which conforms closest to the institutional standard and require in contract that the vendor improve the product to the accessibility standard over a specified period of time. This is most crucial for those enterprise-wide products that impact large segments of the campus community (e.g., course management, human resource, or fiscal management systems). Products that greatly impact enterprise-wide web accessibility include the following: Content creation and delivery tools: Examples include word processing, presentation software, video streaming, podcasting, wikis, and virtual worlds. Authoring tools: Examples include any software program used to develop a web site. Course or learning management systems: Examples include systems that house, organize, or deliver courses or learning objects. Student, financial and administrative tools: Examples include admissions, registration & enrollment, campus financial, human resource, student financial aid, purchasing, student grading and transcripts.

Accessibility requirements for course resources that are shared but originate from other institutions

The web accessibility policies of potential partners are considered when making cooperative agreements across institutions to ensure that shared content conforms to the institutional standard for accessibility.

Products developed by the institution meet the accessibility standard

All web-based products developed by campus personnel, or in conjunction with the institution, meet the standards set forth in the institution's web policy.

Indicator #4: Assessment

Back to Top

Ongoing assessment is necessary to ensure that an accessibility plan is working and on track. Processes must be in place to measure progress and obtain desired outcomes, constituent satisfaction, and to determine the sustainability of the program.

Back to Top

Provisions are made to ensure that the plan is implemented as intended (e.g., scope, training, and support of staff, timelines). Oversight is provided to key personnel to evaluate progress and ensure that implementation is occurring at predicted levels, or that alterations in planned implementation are identified and communicated.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Data or information on institutional progress within the implementation process

Data or information that is gathered in the course of developing and implementing campus-wide accessibility is used as a resource for evaluation and improvement of the process.

Formal reports on the progress of the intended implementation plan

Formal reports on progress serve as a catalyst for evaluation and review. Information from a variety of sources and viewpoints are brought together in a formal report to provide insight into the enterprise-wide process that may not be apparent when components are reviewed in isolation.

Informal summaries or communications on the progress of the implementation plan

Informal information and summaries are used to supply quick and useful information on the progress of the plan. Data is used to provide an early warning of potential problems and to alleviated or resolve them before they become critical.

Back to Top

No plan or policy is useful if it does not provide the intended outcome. It is essential that the institution periodically monitors and evaluates the status of its web accessibility to determine if it is meeting the standard set by the institution. It should be noted that automated accessibility tools do not provide a complete assessment picture and manual checks need to be included as part of the 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 it should be altered to be in line with current standards and practices.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Institutional web accessibility data

Data collection and analysis is an ongoing process incorporating both formative and summative information. Accessibility samples of a percentage of pages across different parts of the institution's web site provide periodic snapshots of accessibility outcomes.

Institutional reports containing web accessibility data or summaries

As web accessibility is enacted across the institution, periodic reviews and accessibility audits are conducted to ensure that progress is continuing and that web pages, once made accessible, remain accessible despite changes made to them. These data are typically summarized in formal reports whether they are reports that have a sole focus on accessibility or not.

Reports from external evaluations of web accessibility outcomes

Periodic evaluation by an external reviewer provides fresh perspectives and an impartial assessment of an instruction's progress and outcomes. This review can come from many sources including peer institutions, web accessibility groups, or standards specialists.

Correspondence describing outcomes

Correspondence between key personnel, regarding accessibility data and updates to administrators is used to provide a valuable window into the status of web accessibility outcomes at an institution.

Back to Top

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. Ongoing oversight and review of data sources are used to make changes to procedures to ensure that the institution can create and maintain enterprise-wide web accessibility. Moreover, these same data can be used for future changes in institutional policy.

Evidence of this benchmark may include:

Reports that reflect recommendations for change

Recommendations for action can affect any aspect of institutional web accessibility including policy, staffing, budget, process, or plan. The recommendations can come from a variety of sources and can be recorded in a range of formats including reports, meeting minutes, or correspondence.

Documentation that describes how data sources inform institutional efforts

The ability to adapt once the need is shown is essential to facilitate enterprise-wide web accessibility. Sometimes documenting how data sources will inform efforts is all that can be demonstrated until cycles of monitoring begin.