The W3C Accessibility Maturity Model (AMM) provides a framework that equips individuals and organizations of all sizes to
develop, deploy, and maintain the accessibility of both internal and external digital resources over time. This
comprehensive framework encompasses all aspects of managing an organization's staff resources as well as its
ever-evolving public ones. It readily scales in support of:
- single person consultancies,
- nonprofits, NGOs of any size,
- local and national governmental departments, courts, legislatures, agencies, and commissions, and
- SOHO businesses, major international corporate organizations or
corporate departments, and any business entity type or size.
From public-facing content deployment and public-facing, interactive service provision, to internal activities
and
HR resources that are related to employee relations, the AMM provides a framework for measuring and assessing accessibility maturity, aligning staff teams toward common
goals and objectives. It provides actionable guidance for establishing or improving policies,
employee communication, training, and tools. It also includes a way to measure and document organizational,
cultural and technical capabilities.
Introduction
About the Accessibility Maturity Model
Incorporating considerations for the accessibility of [=Information and Communications Technology=] (ICT)
into an [=organization=]’s workflow and quality governance can be a complex process. While some
organizations have individuals or departments that support accessibility, many do not. Too often the need for
systematic governance of accessibility in the organization remains unaddressed. This, in turn, can limit the
organization's
ability to produce and sustain accessible products, services, training, and documentation.
The W3C Accessibility Maturity Model framework has been developed to address this gap — to encourage and
support organizations in establishing and implementing accessibility governance systems within their
organizations. The AMM exists to assist organizations in systematically integrating ICT accessibility criteria
into policies, key
business processes, organizational culture and management structures, in a consistent, repeatable and measurable
fashion.
This AMM describes an overall framework for establishing a robust ICT accessibility
program and identifying areas for improvement. It is a tool that:
- assesses the current effectiveness and capabilities of an entire organization, or subunits within the
organization
- supports identification of gaps between the current capabilities and the next level of accessibility
maturity
- supports planning for next steps to improve the organization's accessibility performance over time
Accessibility maturity modeling is very different from accessibility conformance testing.
Conformance testing provides information about the level of accessibility that a particular product conforms
to, at a particular time. The results of a conformance test provide a picture of a particular version of a
product, or a
subcomponent of a product, at the time of testing and evaluation.
Maturity modeling provides information about the ability of an organization to produce accessible products over
the long term. The results of a maturity modeling assessment provide a holistic picture of an organization’s
accessibility initiatives; where the organization is performing accessibility functions well, and where
improvements can be made to remove barriers.
Audience for the Accessibility Maturity Model
This document is intended to guide and evaluate the levels of organizational accessibility maturity in a public
or private sector organization at any scale.
The audience for this maturity model includes:
- executive levels of an organization’s leadership
- other levels of management responsible for accessibility maturity
- policy and business process subject matter experts who are responsible for putting plans, actions, metrics, and
governance in place.
Scope
This framework encompasses the full scope of an organization's accessibility responsibilities. It brings the
power of web technologies to the task of identifying those responsibilities and establishing processes to
measure performance over time.
This framework may also be used to measure the accessibility maturity level of parts of the organization,
provided that the limited scope is clearly identified in any reports submitted to third parties.
Research and standards review
During the development of the W3C AMM, the Maturity Model Task Force reviewed various existing
accessibility maturity models. These models differ in scope, structure, and intended audience. Some are
available at no cost, while others are proprietary and offered at a fee or part of a paid engagement. In
addition to general-purpose frameworks, some are tailored to specific industries, and some are frameworks developed by
major technology companies like Microsoft.
Organizations embrace diverse accessibility maturity models to benchmark and advance their practices.
Three of the most commonly referenced general models are:
- Digital
Accessibility Maturity Model (DAMM) — developed by Level Access:
- DAMM measures maturity across multiple interconnected areas, and encourages collaboration among teams and user-focused testing.
- Policy
Driven Adoption for Accessibility (PDAA) — developed by National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO):
-
- PDAA can be used as a high level strategic assessment within an organization.
- PDAA can be optimized for focusing on digital procurements.
- PDAA helps agencies incorporate accessibility into policies, staff training, and vendor oversight, with tools designed for federal Section 508 compliance that can be used more widely.
- ISO 30071-1 — evolved from the UK BS 8878 framework:
- ISO 30071-1 extends its influence globally by guiding organizations in integrating accessibility into ICT development policy, including the development lifecycle, risk control quality assurance, and procurement standards.
An example of a maturity model that is tailored to a specific industry is:
Maturity Model structure
The Accessibility Maturity Model is organized around seven essential [=dimensions=] of an [=organization=] where
accessibility maturity can improve conformance with accessibility standards and regulations.
Dimensions have a unique descriptive name with a high-level, plain-language summary of what the dimension covers.
Each dimension has two sub-sections:
- Proof points are criteria for accessibility maturity supported by evidence. Each [=proof point=] includes a
high-level description. Deliverables are mostly self-explanatory, but in some cases, additional information is
provided.
- [=Maturity level=], with definitions and expected outcomes to help [=organizations=] assess and report on the
status of accessibility maturity attained for the dimension. The maturity level indicates what is needed to
reach full maturity for that dimension.
Dimensions
The seven [=dimensions=] of organizational accessibility maturity are:
- Communications: Information as it relates to an [=organization=]’s accessibility, as well
as accessibility of all internal/external communications.
- Culture: The attitudes, sensitivity, and behaviors around accessibility, including internal
interaction, perception, and decision-making.
- ICT (Information and Communication Technology) Development Life Cycle: Incorporation of
web, software and hardware accessibility considerations in development processes - from idea conception, to
design, development, testing, [=ACR=] production, user research, maintenance and obsolescence.
- Knowledge and Skills: Ongoing education, and outsourcing practices to fill gaps for
accessibility operations.
- Personnel: Job descriptions, recruiting, disability-related employee resource groups
necessary to provide lived-experience to accessibility efforts.
- Procurement: A strategic process that concentrates on finding and acquiring accessible
products required by an organization. Activities may include: sourcing, negotiation, and selecting goods and
services.
- Support: Accessibility assistance provided to internal employees and external [=customers=]
with disabilities.
Proof points
Each dimensional outcome has a range of suggested [=proof points=], which includes any evidence or necessary
measures that can be used to determine the maturity of each [=dimension=]. Progress towards achieving maturity
is attained by creating the proof points described for each dimension.
- Proof points are evidence-based, organizational deliverables which indicate the [=maturity level=].
- Proof points are specific to the dimension being focused on. For example, if only procurement maturity is
being measured, only procurement proof points should be evaluated.
- For some dimensions, proof points are further organized by category.
- Proof points can be partially completed at the Launch and Integrate levels, but must be fully completed for
the optimize level.
For example, if a dimension requires a plan to identify ICT accessibility related skill levels and gaps, then
the corresponding proof point would be a document containing the evaluation of ICT accessibility related skill
levels and gaps.
Maturity levels
Each level is attained by meeting the defined outcomes for that specific [=dimension=]. The completed [=proof
points=] demonstrate the efforts to achieve the outcomes for a [=maturity level=].
All relevant outcomes should be addressed but not all outcomes will apply to all organizations and situations.
When an outcome does not apply, it is marked N/A (Not applicable). For example, an accessibility policy does not
need to reference native applications if the organization has none.
Levels are cumulative, so level advancement is achieved by first meeting the specific criteria of a lower
level.
Note: The terms for the levels were adopted for consistency with the Policy-Driven Adoption for Accessibility maturity model, currently
being used by some U.S. state and local government agencies.
Levels loosely correspond to the following criteria:
Levels |
Criteria |
Inactive |
Little to no awareness, activity, or recognition, of need. |
Launch |
Recognized need in the organization. Planning initiated, but activities not well organized. |
Integrate |
Roadmap in place, overall organizational approach defined and well organized. |
Optimize |
Incorporated into the whole organization, consistently evaluated, and actions taken on assessment
outcomes. |
Assessment tool
The Maturity Model Assessment Tool is a detailed prototype designed to track the accessibility maturity evaluation process outlined in this publication.
It was used by the Task Force developing this maturity model to assess the coherency of our narrative. Currently, it is available as an Excel spreadsheet.
Future versions are expected to be in HTML and may also be offered in other accessible, downloadable formats.
Accessibility maturity per dimension
Communications
Communications need to be accessible to the widest audience possible and meet the requirements in the
accessibility standards. Accessible communications applies to all communications that are:
- external and internal
- formal and informal
- major and minor
- generated by the [=organization=] directly or by third parties under contract to the organization
Accessible
communications is an umbrella term for clear, direct, and easy-to-understand communications that are
renderable in multiple formats so that all users have equivalent access. It considers barriers to accessing
information and removes them or provides alternatives.
How to Evaluate Communications' Maturity Level
- Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [=Dimension=] accessibility maturity.
Not
all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are
non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in
their place and/or additional proof points.
- List all of the organization's communication documentation in relation to the identified proof
points.
- Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for communication.
The level is Inactive when proof points demonstrate that:
- no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been identified.
The level is Launch when proof points demonstrate that:
- some plans are in place to make internal and external communications accessible (and compliant with
accessibility regulations, where applicable), but those plans haven't materialized into a cohesive
roadmap
- plans are in place to provide training on accessible communications knowledge and skills relevant to each
individual's position.
The level is Integrate when proof points demonstrate that:
- an accessible communications roadmap has been developed
- some accessible communications have been delivered across internal and external media and platforms
- inaccessible communication tools are beginning to be replaced with accessible ones
- an accessibility policy includes requirements for a feedback system for users and a formal process for
handling accessibility complaints
- training on accessible communications relevant to each individual's position has started.
The level is Optimize when proof points demonstrate that:
- authoring, editing, and reviewing processes, procedures, and tools are in place, used consistently, and
are regularly evaluated and refined to ensure that all internal and external communications are fully
accessible
- accessible communications training relevant to each individual's position is required, measured, and
monitored for improvement.
Proof Points
Communications [=proof points=] may include but are not limited to:
Foundation for accessible communication
- There are accessible corporate document templates.
- There are documented HTML or PDF conversion procedures to support accessibility features.
- Processes, procedures, and requirements for creating accessible communications are documented and
available to employees.
- Accessible collaboration tools are available (e.g., e-meeting, webinar, conferencing, chat).
Accessible Direct Communications
- Consistent use of accessible templates for:
- marketing and sales materials delivered in electronic formats
- technical documents or position papers
- Product Accessibility Conformance Reports ([=ACRs=])
- other accessibility documentation
- presentations.
- Internal and external websites:
- are accessible per regional regulatory requirements (e.g. conforms to WCAG)
- may have an accessibility statement (legal requirement for websites for public sector bodies
in the European Union)
- may contain a statement of commitment to accessibility.
- Products and services: accessibility compliance documentation is available and delivered in an
accessible format (on the website, by request, or through the procurement process)
- Accessibility Conformance Reports ([=ACR=])
- accessibility statement(a legal requirement for websites for public sector bodies in the
European Union)
- other accessibility-related documents, as identified.
- multimedia, such as captions, transcripts, and described audio, if needed
- social media and blog content
- customer and vendor training
- information on [=customer=] support
- feedback mechanism for handling questions and accessibility complaints
- legal documents, payment and billing
- other communications, as identified.
Accessible Communications Training
- Accessible communications training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this
[=dimension=]'s [=proof points=]
Dimension Goals and Metrics
- Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
ICT development lifecycle
Accessible Information and communication technologies (ICT) serve as a critical enabler that allows
persons with disabilities to realize full and effective opportunities to participate, on the basis of equality,
in all aspects of society and development that involve technology. Accessibility should be considered throughout
the entire ICT development lifecycle: from idea conception to design, development, testing, production of an
[=ACR=] based on Industry recognized standards, user research, maintenance, and obsolescence. Training programs
must be established and ongoing to have the necessary skills for the ICT Development Lifecycle dimension.
How to Evaluate ICT Development Lifecycle Maturity Level
- Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [=Dimension=] accessibility maturity.
Not
all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are
non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in
their place and/or additional proof points.
- List all of the organization's ICT development lifecycle documentation in relation to the identified
proof points.
- Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for ICT development
lifecycle.
The level is Inactive when proof points demonstrate that:
- no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been identified.
The level is Launch when proof points demonstrate that:
- there is some awareness and recognition of the need for accessible ICT development, but it is
inconsistently approached or decentralized
- accessibility efforts are limited to new products, applications, and websites
- plans are in place to provide accessibility ICT development lifecycle training, relevant to each
individual's position.
The level is Integrate when proof points demonstrate that:
- there are ongoing process improvement efforts for accessibility in the ICT development lifecycle per role
or discipline
- accessibility requirements are considered and practiced but not consistently applied during ICT design,
development, and testing across the ICT portfolio
- remediation of existing products, applications, and websites has started
- training on ICT development lifecycle accessibility, relevant to each individual's position, has
started.
The level is Optimize when proof points demonstrate that:
- there's an ICT development accessibility thought leader at the organization who adheres to a
structural, standardized, and reporting approach
- design specifications include accessibility guidance, developers consistently create accessible User
Interfaces (UI), manual and automated accessibility testing is performed during development, and
automated accessibility testing is incorporated into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery
(CI/CD) build pipelines
- release management includes gates for accessibility quality
- maintenance releases are re-inspected for accessibility
- [=ACR=]s are updated and made available, as needed, for procurable ICT
- research deliberately seeks out and evaluates input from users with disabilities
- ICT development lifecycle accessibility training, relevant to each individual's position, is
required, measured, and monitored for improvement.
Proof Points for ICT Development Lifecycle Dimension
ICT development lifecycle [=proof points=] may include but are not limited to:
User Research
- user research includes disabilities
- conduct user research focusing only on disabilities
- research participants are provided with applicable accommodations, such as more time for the session,
assistive technology, virtual options, and details about the physical location for in-person sessions and
how they will be provided access
- forms, releases, instructions, or other materials are accessible
- archetypes, personas, journey maps, and other relevant synthesis and output from user research include
people with disabilities
Planning and Design
- digital accessibility standards and other related criteria (as identified) are integrated into planning
and design phases of ICT development projects
- designers have access to accessibility checklists, guidelines, annotation templates, etc.
- accessibility reviews are part of the design process
- all style guides, including but not limited to design and content include accessibility considerations
- accessibility considerations are integrated into individual components of the design system as well as
into their composition within higher-level structures.
- design deliverables handed off to developers include accessibility information and annotations that meet
relevant accessibility standards
- consistent approach to designing accessibility features across products
- user stories, personas, any other framework that is used, includes persons with disabilities
Development
- accessible developer implementation resources
- team channels to discuss accessibility - direct messaging, office hours, email
- information pages
- developer's accessibility checklists
- consistent approach to implementing accessibility features across products
- documented way to triage and prioritize fixing accessibility issues and address [=customer=]-reported
feedback on accessibility
- accessibility requirements are included in sign off criteria throughout product lifecycle
User Experience
- User research includes disabilities
- Test subject forms, releases, instructions, or other materials are accessible
Quality Review Through Release
- consistent approach to accessibility testing and releasing products
- testing process documents steps for manual accessibility testing, utilizing assistive technology
- testing process includes automated accessibility testing
- schedule includes stakeholder activities focused on accessibility
- bug-tracking system includes an accessibility category
- prioritization and review system for accessibility defects
- accessibility is identified as a product release gate
- documented testing steps and cadence for agile delivery of changes without a full release cycle. Some
examples are:
- content review for website updates
- content review for social media posts
- Accessibility Conformance Reports ( [=ACR=]) created in the final stages of ICT Dev Lifecycle for
Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) offerings.
ICT Development Training
- ICT Development and Test training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this
dimension's [=proof points=]
Dimension Goals and Metrics
- Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
Knowledge and skills
Internal and external personnel at all levels of an [=organization=] should have accessibility knowledge and
skills relevant to their organizational role. Accessibility knowledge and skills relevant to each
individual's position help employees understand their part in achieving the organization's
accessibility goals.
While this dimension includes [=proof points=] to be implemented at the organization level, knowledge and
skills specific to each of the other dimensions should be included within their respective proof points, as
appropriate.
How to Evaluate Knowledge and Skills Maturity Level
- Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [=Dimension=] accessibility maturity.
Not
all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are
non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in
their place and/or additional proof points.
- List all of the organization's knowledge and skills documentation in relation to the identified proof
points.
- Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for knowledge and
skills.
The level is Inactive when proof points demonstrate that:
- no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been identified.
The level is Launch when proof points demonstrate that:
- there are plans in place or initiated, but activities aren't well organized
- knowledge and skill areas are identified, and plans for organization-wide assessments to identify gaps are
initiated but have not been completed
- some ad hoc training is provided, but professional development is not required or monitored
- requirements are defined for 3rd party learning tools and systems
- role-based training plans are under development
- accessibility training relevant to each individual's position has started.
The level is Integrate when proof points demonstrate that:
- there's a workforce skills and training roadmap that includes:
- accessibility objectives for knowledge and skills assessments
- available training by role
- current information on learning technologies, platforms, and tools
- training is available to enhance knowledge and skills around ICT accessibility and disability inclusion
- training metrics are established.
The level is Optimize when proof points demonstrate that:
- all personnel position descriptions, hiring announcements, and project management consistently communicate
the required and preferred accessibility knowledge and skills
- the workforce is periodically evaluated to ensure knowledge and skills are current with the most
up-to-date standards and accessibility practices
- training is part of the onboarding process
- periodic analysis has been used to identify gaps in knowledge as well as training materials
- annual training (conferences, events, online, etc.) is provided to maintain skills current with
ICT accessibility requirements and industry best practices
- workforce inclusion training incorporates accessibility for persons with disabilities, and certification
programs are available
- tracking systems are in place and consistently used to maintain training inventory, measure skills, and
track completion
- training to enhance accessibility knowledge and skills relevant to each individual's position is
required, measured, and monitored for improvement.
Proof Points
Knowledge and skills proof points may include but are not limited to:
Assessing Skills to Identify and Address Gaps
Assessments may include:
- organizational surveys that identify current skill levels and gaps
- tracking employee training for ICT accessibility skills
- certification or competency reviews and programs
- accessibility criteria integration into employee performance measurements.
- keeping skills up-to-date with current requirements
Building and Maintaining Organizational Capacity
Organizational capacity may include:
- implementation of role-based training plans and curricula
- procuring external training resources as needed
- incorporation of digital accessibility training curricula into organizational learning management,
tracking, and auditing systems
- accessibility training when onboarding all new employees
- accessibility requirements included in position descriptions
- subject matter experts (SMEs) positioned within the organization to provide training and support
- organizing or attending digital accessibility events to increase awareness and knowledge
- awareness campaigns (also pertinent to the Cultural dimension)
Dimension Integration
- Training and learning programs should be integrated into proof points for each dimension
Dimension Goals and Metrics
- Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
Oversight and culture
Organizational culture consists of shared beliefs, values, policies, and processes established by leaders that
ultimately shape employee perceptions, behaviors, and understanding.
To demonstrate cultural maturity in accessibility, all aspects of the [=organization=]'s operation,
processes, and skills should include considerations for disability inclusion. Every member of the organization
should understand and be sensitive to the importance of ICT accessibility, including their personal role and
responsibilities in meeting the organization’s accessibility goals. Accessibility should be an integral part of
diversity and inclusion within the organization, with a clear recognition of the benefits of disability
inclusion and the impact of ICT accessibility on people with disabilities to facilitate access to jobs,
services, and other aspects of life.
How to evaluate oversight and culture maturity level
- Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [=Dimension=] accessibility maturity.
Not
all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are
non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in
their place and/or additional proof points.
- List all of the organization's culture documentation in relation to the identified proof points.
- Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for culture.
The level is Inactive when proof points demonstrate that:
- no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been identified.
The level is Launch when proof points demonstrate that:
- there's a recognized need for organization-wide cultural programs on accessibility and disability
inclusion, and planning has been initiated, but with limited activity
- work has been initiated for:
- integrating ICT accessibility into organizational processes and governance, including policies and
practices that impact employees and external audiences
- identifying leadership for the initiative
- formulating cultural programs
- plans are in place for providing accessibility culture knowledge and skills relevant to each individual’s
position.
The level is Integrate when proof points demonstrate that:
- cultural programs have been created and initially deployed
- metrics have been established, and hiring practices have been implemented
- policies are in place with partial execution
- diversity and inclusion are promoted, but no action plan has been developed
- [=communities of practice=] have been established
- training on accessibility culture knowledge and skills relevant to each individual’s position has started.
The level is Optimize when proof points demonstrate that:
- there's a strong cultural awareness, appreciation, sensitivity, and support for all aspects of ICT
accessibility and people with disabilities
- policies, processes, and practices are in place, used consistently, and regularly reviewed and refined as
needed
- all employees understand and are sensitive to the importance of ICT accessibility and how it fits within
their roles and responsibilities. They also appreciate the value of a diverse population within and outside
the organization
- training on accessibility culture knowledge and skills relevant to each individual's position is
required, measured, and monitored for improvement
Proof Points
Oversight & Culture [=proof points=] may include but are not limited to:
Organizational Culture of Disability Inclusion
- executive sponsor in place for digital accessibility
- executive-level digital accessibility program leadership
- executive statement of the organization's commitment to digital accessibility
Financial commitment
- financial plan is developed for activities needed to advance maturity across Dimensions
- funding is committed for activities to advance Dimensions through maturity
ICT accessibility policy
- business strategy includes proactive approach to digital accessibility
- business strategy includes digital accessibility
- digital accessibility included in core values
- digital accessibility included in code of conduct
- digital accessibility focus in communities of practice
- ICT accessibility criteria are integrated into employee/officer performance objectives
- digital accessibility program effectiveness is monitored and improved
- employee feedback captures accessibility and disability related data
- Exception/risk acceptance process which includes justification, time limits, and executive approval,
in place for non-accessible digital assets developed, procured, or used by the organization.
General Training
- accessibility-related training to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this dimension's
[=proof points=]
Dimension Goals and Metrics
- Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
Personnel
Qualified individuals with disabilities should be employed throughout an [=organization=]'s hierarchy
(that is, all job types, all authority levels, and every department) so that their unique insights and
lived experiences can better inform decision-making.
How to evaluate personnel maturity level
- Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [=Dimension=] accessibility maturity.
Not
all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are
non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in
their place and/or additional proof points.
- List all of the organization's personnel documentation in relation to the identified proof points.
- Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for personnel.
The level is Inactive when proof points demonstrate that:
- no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been identified.
The level is Launch when proof points demonstrate that:
- including employees with disabilities in the workforce has been recognized
- targeted recruiting of qualified candidates with disabilities has been initiated, but recruitment,
retention, engagement, and activities related to disability inclusion are not well-organized
- accessible hiring announcements that encourage applications from the disability community are posted
- equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities is specifically stated in organization diversity
and inclusion policies and statements
- a champion has been designated to facilitate and mature disability inclusion
- plans are in place for providing disability inclusion training, relevant to each individual’s position.
The level is Integrate when proof points demonstrate that:
- a disability inclusion roadmap that drives ICT accessibility is in place
- the overall organizational approach to evaluating recruitment, retention, advancement, and engagement is
defined
- process integration for maturing disability inclusion efforts for ICT accessibility is in progress but not
consistently implemented across the organization
- the organization has identified strategic positions to employ people with disabilities who will help audit and
drive the development of accessible products and services
- targeted recruiting of employees with disabilities with an accessible recruiting process
- training on accessibility inclusion knowledge and skills relevant to each individual's position has
started.
The level is Optimize when proof points demonstrate that:
- employees with disabilities are leveraged throughout the organization to achieve full ICT accessibility
maturity
- organization-wide, disability inclusion staffing efforts are well-defined, evaluated, remediated, and
integrated with ICT accessibility efforts and goals across the organization
- employees with disabilities hold critical decision-making positions and are included in all areas of the
organization to drive accessibility in every facet of the business
- the disability employee resource group (ERG) is leveraged to inform accessibility decision-making
- employees with disabilities are leveraged to audit accessibility
- employees with disabilities are leveraged for product development
- employees with disabilities are leveraged for the development of accessible services.
Proof points
Personnel proof points may include but are not limited to:
Targeted Recruiting
- established goals for recruiting employees with disabilities
- recruiting needs assessment/gap analysis (Examples: Programming / accessibility skills, etc),
- initiatives to recruit employees with disabilities
Strategic Engagement
- established employee resource group (ERG), with an executive sponsor, for employees with
disabilities to directly contribute first-hand knowledge and lived experience to accessibility efforts
- product and project focus groups of employees with disabilities
- mentoring program for employees with disabilities
- employee's performance is evaluated against the accessibility responsibilities and expectations outlined
in their job description
Accessibility Training Programs
- Accessibility Training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this dimension’s
proof points
Dimension Goals and Metrics
- Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
Procurement
Procurement is a strategic process focused on finding and acquiring cost-effective products needed by an
[=organization=]. Activities in procurement include sourcing, negotiation, and selection of goods and services.
The majority of an organization's ICT assets result from procurement transactions and contracts. When
accessibility criteria are integrated into procurement processes and contract language, an organization can be
more capable of providing accessible products, services, and workplaces.
How to evaluate procurement maturity level
- Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [=Dimension=] accessibility maturity.
Not
all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are
non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in
their place and/or additional proof points.
- List all of the organization's procurement documentation in relation to the identified proof points.
- Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for procurement.
The level is Inactive when proof points demonstrate that:
- no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been identified.
The level is Launch when proof points demonstrate that:
- work has been initiated to identify and integrate accessibility into procurement processes and
accessibility language into all ICT-related solicitation and contract documents and vendor responses
throughout the procurement life cycle
- some plans are in place for providing accessibility procurement knowledge and skills relevant to each
individual's position.
The level is Integrate when proof points demonstrate that:
- solicitation and contract language are complete, and responses have been analyzed by accessibility or
trained procurement professionals
- vendors are required to submit accessibility documentation to be evaluated as part of the overall vendor
assessment
- a communications mechanism has been put in place to inform vendors of accessibility requirements
- accessibility is a monitored element of the procurement life cycle
- accessibility criteria are included in contract renewal negotiations
- training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills relevant to each individual's position has
started.
The level is Optimize when proof points demonstrate that:
- full and consistent use of accessibility processes, criteria, contract language, and decision-making to
procure and maintain accessible products and services throughout the procurement life cycles
- procurement processes are regularly reviewed and refined as needed
- training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills relevant to each individual's position is
required, and improvement is measured and monitored.
Proof points
Procurement [=proof points=] may include but are not limited to:
Policy Documentation
- published ICT Accessibility Procurement Policy
- accessibility requirements and other information are communicated to vendors
Consistent Use of Standardized Procurement Language
- standardized solicitation language that includes accessibility for ICT procurement
- standardized solicitation language that includes accessibility in ICT contracts
- accessibility-specific solicitation forms and templates for items like bids and proposals
Consistent Evaluation Process and Methods
- proof that accessibility evaluations are performed on solicitation responses.
- documented evaluation methodology
- submission scoring methodologies
Accessibility Contract Language
- proof of Vendor accessibility testing
- procurement-specific accessibility checkpoint requirements for custom development contracts
- warranties and remedies section includes accessibility
- vendor corrective actions and remediation plans pre- and post-deployment
- executed contract examples with accessibility language
Accessibility in Procurement Program Management
- procurement processes and policies evaluated for accessibility integration
- [=contract lifecycle=] management includes accessibility requirements
- procurement-related accessibility metrics are tracked and documented
- a defined process for identifying and addressing user accessibility complaints with vendors
Procurement Training
- accessibility-related procurement training is in place for staff to build and maintain relevant skills
in support of this dimension's proof points
Dimension Goals and Metrics
- Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
Support
Both internal employees and external customers with disabilities need support with regard to the
organization's ICT. This includes reasonable accommodations for employees and customer support specific to
users' ICT accessibility needs.
How to evaluate support maturity level
- Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [=Dimension=] accessibility maturity.
Not
all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are
non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in
their place and/or additional proof points.
- List all of the organization's support documentation in relation to the identified proof points.
- Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for this dimension.
The level is Inactive when proof points demonstrate that:
- no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been identified.
The level is Launch when proof points demonstrate that:
- Plans are in place to provide basic information about accessibility support to customers and employees,
but there hasn't been any execution yet. This may include:
- a written reasonable accommodation policy and process
- relevant accessibility and accommodation support information.
- Accessibility support training relevant to each individual's position is planned but hasn't been
provided yet.
The level is Integrate when proof points demonstrate that:
- the customer-facing website has a dedicated accessibility help section with frequently asked questions
(FAQ) or help topics
- tools and processes are in place to facilitate requests for employee accommodations
- hiring managers have access to disability awareness training
- accessibility support training relevant to each individual's position has started.
The level is Optimize when proof points demonstrate that:
- fully trained customer support staff able to support users' accessibility questions
- multiple ways to communicate with technical support that meets the needs of customers with disabilities
are provided
- ICT accessibility support is available for all internally and externally used ICT
- training programs are in place for ICT support staff, and staff has been trained
- continuous improvement plans are ongoing
- accessibility support training relevant to each individual's position is required, measured, and
monitored for improvement
Proof points
Support [=proof points=] may include but are not limited to:
- written policy on requesting and providing employee ICT-related [=accommodations=]
- publicly available (and accessible) web accessibility statement with pointers to support
mechanisms
- support mechanisms are accessible
- help topics or FAQs that are specific to accessibility
- training for [=customer=] support agents (or internal ICT support staff) in accessibility,
assistive technology, and disability etiquette and awareness
- existence of a disability-focused employee resource group (ERG) with executive sponsorship
- validation process in place to manage accessibility feedback
- accessibility feedback is incorporated to facilitate continuous improvement of identified ICT
- defined and documented methods to evaluate the effectiveness of accessibility support, actively in use.
- Make sure career paths and associated activities to achieve those goals are available and accessible.
(onboarding, recruitment)
- Ensure support for use of assistive technology
- Consider the full range of accommodations needed by employees with disabilities to accomplish assigned
activities
Employee Support
- Written policy on requesting and providing employee ICT-related accommodations
- Existence of a disability-focused employee resource group (ERG) with executive sponsorship
- Make sure career paths and associated activities to achieve those goals are available and accessible.
(onboarding, recruitment)
- Ensure support for use of assistive technology
- Consider the full range of accommodations needed by employees with disabilities to accomplish assigned
activities
Organizational Support
- Establish policies, practices and procedures for providing accessible service
- Ensure that all information is presented in plain language
- Support mechanisms are accessible
- Provide accessibility knowledge base within the internal resources of the organization
- Validation process in place to manage accessibility feedback
- Mechanism to capture Accessibility feedback in place
- Accessibility feedback is considered and incorporated as appropriate
- Include people with disabilities in accessibility initiatives
External Support
- Publicly available (and accessible) digital accessibility statement with pointers to support mechanisms
- Written policy on requesting and providing customer accommodations, if applicable
- Provide accessibility documentation for external use
Accessibility Training Programs
- Accessibility Training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this dimension’s
proof points
Dimension Goals and Metrics
- Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
Internal resources needed to implement the maturity model at your organization
Implementing the maturity model is a group effort. We know that every organization is set up differently and will
have different titles/roles, so we compiled a sample list to help you get started and identify who will be helping
you on the proof points and the dimensions.
- You should identify a key leader that’s responsible for key aspects of each dimension and for driving
that dimension to full maturity. The leader may or may not have knowledge of digital accessibility.
- If accessibility is new to the dimension leader(s), they should gain basic digital accessibility training. We
suggest checking out W3C’s free, online
courses to learn more about what digital accessibility is, why it’s important, and who benefits from
it.
- If your organization has the ability to form a working group, that might be a great way to collaborate on this
effort.
Role |
Communications |
Knowledge and Skills |
Support |
ICT Dev Life Cycle |
Personnel |
Procurement |
Culture |
Accessibility consultant/advisor |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Accessibility/Disability/Inclusion influencer |
Y |
N |
Y |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
Accessibility specialist/helper/org |
Y |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
AT developer |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Authoring tool developer |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
Call center representative |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Chief Accessibility Officer |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Content provider/producer |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
Designer |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
Developer |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
Disability organization member |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
Y |
Evaluation tool developer |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
Government policy regulator or specialist |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
Instructor/trainer |
N |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
Y |
IT manager |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
Legal representative |
Y |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Organizational policy-maker |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Platform developer (HW, OS, Browser) |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
Product manager |
Y |
N |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
Professional/Industry Org/Assoc |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
Y |
Project manager |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
QA specialist |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
Y |
N |
Researcher |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
Standards developer |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
Teaching resource developer |
N |
Y |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Technology innovator |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
W3C Accessibility Guidelines Working Group |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Employees with Disabilities |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
User Experience (UX) Team |
Y |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
Y |
Y |
Diversity and Inclusion Officer |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Public Relations/Communications |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Procurement Team |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Sample use cases for identifying internal resources
To help you get started, we’ve curated eight sample use cases that an organization might encounter and
identified what dimensions and roles could be involved to help complete the task. Refer to the roles table in the
appendix for more details.
Use case one
A software organization is responding to an RFP. They’ve been asked to demonstrate that they can retain the
accuracy and timeliness of their [=ACR=]s and refresh them as needed.
Dimensions:
Knowledge and Skills, ICT Dev Lifecycle, and Personnel are the critical dimensions.
Roles that could be involved in use case one:
- Accessibility consultant/advisor
- Accessibility/Disability/Inclusion Influencer
- Accessibility specialist/helper/org
- Authoring tool developer
- Chief Accessibility Officer
- Content provider/producer
- Designer
- Developer
- Disability organization member
- Evaluation tool developer
- Instructor/trainer
- IT manager
- Legal representative
- Organizational policy-maker
- Platform developer
- Product Manager
- Professional/industry org/associate
- Project manager
- QA Specialist
- Researcher
- Standards developer
- Teaching resource developer
- Technology innovator
- Employees with disabilities
- User experience team
- Diversity and Inclusion Officer
Use case two
A government agency is issuing an RFP. They want to ask potential respondents to demonstrate that they can retain
the accuracy and timeliness of their [=ACR=]s and refresh them as needed.
Dimensions:
Knowledge and Skills, ICT Dev Lifecycle, and Personnel are the critical dimensions.
Roles that could be involved in use case two:
- Accessibility consultant/advisor
- Accessibility/Disability/Inclusion Influencer
- Accessibility specialist/helper/org
- Authoring tool developer
- Chief Accessibility Officer
- Content provider/producer
- Designer
- Developer
- Disability organization member
- Evaluation tool developer
- Instructor/trainer
- IT manager
- Legal representative
- Organizational policy-maker
- Platform developer
- Product Manager
- Professional/industry org/associate
- Project manager
- QA Specialist
- Researcher
- Standards developer
- Teaching resource developer
- Technology innovator
- Employees with disabilities
- User experience team
- Diversity and Inclusion Officer
Use case three
A private sector organization has received multiple complaints from prospective employees about disability
inclusion in the hiring process.
Dimensions:
Communications, Support, Personnel, and Culture are the critical dimensions.
Roles that could be involved in use case three:
- Accessibility consultant/advisor
- Accessibility/Disability/Inclusion Influencer
- Accessibility specialist/helper/org
- Call center representative
- Chief Accessibility Officer
- Content provider/producer
- Designer
- Disability organization member
- Instructor/trainer
- IT manager
- Legal representative
- Organizational policy-maker
- Professional/industry org/associate
- Project manager
- Researcher
- Teaching resource developer
- Employees with disabilities
- Diversity and Inclusion Officer
- Public relations/communications
- Procurement team
Use case four
An accessibility consulting organization wants to show potential customers that their entire organization is optimized
for accessibility.
Dimensions:
Because this use case covers the entire organization, all dimensions must be reviewed.
Roles that could be involved in use case four:
All roles across the organization
Use case five
An NGO wants to determine which areas it should address to improve internal disability inclusion in the next
fiscal year.
Dimensions:
Communications, Support, Personnel, and Culture are the critical dimensions.
Roles that could be involved in use case five:
- Accessibility consultant/advisor
- Accessibility/Disability/Inclusion Influencer
- Accessibility specialist/helper/org
- Call center representative
- Chief Accessibility Officer
- Content provider/producer
- Designer
- Disability organization member
- Instructor/trainer
- IT manager
- Legal representative
- Organizational policy-maker
- Professional/industry org/associate
- Project manager
- Researcher
- Teaching resource developer
- Employees with disabilities
- Diversity and Inclusion Officer
- Public relations/communications
- Procurement team
Use case six
An organization wants to review the accessibility of a second organization that provides third-party digital
content that it will include in its solutions.
Dimensions:
Communications, Knowledge and Skills, and Procurement are the critical dimensions.
Roles that could be involved in use case six:
- Accessibility consultant/advisor
- Accessibility/Disability/Inclusion Influencer
- Accessibility specialist/helper/org
- Call center representative
- Chief Accessibility Officer
- Content provider/producer
- Designer
- Developer
- Disability organization member
- Government policy regulator or specialist
- Instructor/trainer
- IT manager
- Legal representative
- Organizational policy-maker
- Product Manager
- Professional/industry org/associate
- Project manager
- QA Specialist
- Teaching resource developer
- Employees with disabilities
- User experience team
- Diversity and Inclusion Officer
- Public relations/communications
- Procurement team
Use case seven
An organization wants to review the accessibility of a second organization that provides tools and libraries.
Dimensions:
The second organization should be responsible for reviewing the critical Knowledge and Skills, ICT Dev Lifecycle,
and Personnel for its tools and libraries.
Roles that could be involved in use case seven:
All roles across the organization
Use case eight
A large multinational corporation wants to assess the accessibility maturity of a single business unit.
Dimensions:
Review all dimensions in the context of that specific business unit.
Roles that could be involved in use case eight:
All roles across the specific business unit