Objective
The Accessibility Awareness Quotient (AQ) looks to measure an organization's awareness of disability and accessibility requirements and expectations based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The study includes a review of an organization's public-facing web content, policies and procedures, transparency of its accommodation process, grievance process, accessibility statement, and easily identifiable accessibility barriers.
Related: 3 Reasons We Need to Shift From Accessibility Awareness to Action
Methodology
We based our scoring methodology on several simple assumptions:
Accommodation Statement: Everything begins with the reasonable accommodation process. A state committed to inclusion and accessibility will publish an accommodation statement aligning its practices with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other relevant US Statutes. The connection to the ADA should be clear, easy to find, and effortless to navigate. The site should name the ADA contact points and provide access to an actual person.
ADA Grievance Process: The state should clearly show individuals how to file an ADA grievance, meaning that the site explains the process, provides links to the necessary forms, and provides a point of contact, ideally being the state ADA coordinator. The grievance process should be available near or with the accommodation statement.
Accessibility statement: Organizations committed to improving access have begun publishing their commitment to accessibility, ideally, reachable through a marked link on the homepage. Organizations that have defined their accessibility challenges have dedicated resources to improving accessibility and have published them. Organizations that recognize the need to manage their accessibility initiative have assigned a dedicated individual to ensure success.
Accessibility Barriers: Organizations that have taken steps to improve accessibility have begun to address digital accessibility violations (such as alt text, labels, captions, etc.) and should have minimal automated testing errors (clearly visible to the organization without institutional knowledge of accessibility). We assume that in the lifecycle of organizations developing accessibility know-how, the natural first step is to address violations identified with automated testing tools.
Scoring
There are varying degrees of an organization's answer to any of these questions, so we developed a scale to help approximate an organization's level of awareness. All four criteria are scored on a maturing scale. Level 1 is the lowest possible score, and Level 5 is the highest. The scoring criteria for each category are as follows:
| Type | ADA - Accommodation Statement | ADA - Grievance Process | Accessibility Statement | Automated Errors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | None | None | None | >20 |
| Level 2 | Exists within domain | Exists within domain | Exists within domain - has no commitment to any accessibility standard, only acknowledges that accessibility is needed | >15 but <20 |
| Level 3 | Exists with process (a form can be filled out, en email can be sent) | Exists with process (a form can be filled out, en email can be sent) | Exists and clearly communicates ongoing efforts in a transparent way and lists resources for visitors to improve accessibility | >10 but <15 |
| Level 4 | Exists with process and has designated individual to manage | Exists with process and has designated individual to manage | Exists with process and has designated individual to manage (strives for WCAG 2.0 at minimum) | >5 but <10 |
| Level 5 | Dedicated page/department with all components of levels 2 - 4 | Dedicated page/department with all components of levels 2 - 4 | Dedicated page/department with all components of levels 2 - 4 | <5 |
To be clear, this matrix sets a fairly low bar. We are only looking for an organization's awareness of ADA and accessibility requirements as shown through its publicly available content. Organizations that do not have ADA information, an accessibility statement, a designated individual, and a treasure trove of easily identified accessibility errors have much work to do. We are also not arguing that an organization that receives fives across the board is a best practice. What we would like to elaborate, though, is that those with low scores have a long way to go, as there is likely little awareness of accessibility, much less a policy to improve accessibility.
Finally, we recognize that automated violations do not indicate precisely how accessible a website is. However, we believe that through either good coding practices or awareness of accessibility needs, organizations that have fewer automated violations have a better understanding of the user experience and need. For example, an organization with 20 alt text errors has neither taken the time to ensure their code meets specifications nor do they likely have knowledge or awareness of accessibility.
Accessibility Awareness Quotient Series
What's Your State's Accessibility Awareness Quotient (AQ)?
Pacific Region
Comments