Accessibility Metrics & KPIs
Measuring progress toward digital accessibility compliance and continuous improvement.
Why Measure Accessibility
Effective accessibility programs require data-driven management:
- Track progress:Demonstrate improvement over time
- Identify gaps:Find areas needing attention
- Allocate resources:Direct effort where it's most needed
- Report to leadership:Communicate status and ROI
- Ensure compliance:Document meeting regulatory requirements
Metric Categories
Compliance
Technical conformance with WCAG standards
Operational
Service delivery and response times
Training
Staff education and awareness
Procurement
Vendor accessibility compliance
Compliance Metrics
Website Accessibility Score
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Overall Compliance Rate |
Percentage of pages passing automated WCAG 2.1 AA checks |
95% |
| Critical Issue Count |
Number of Level A failures per 100 pages |
<5 |
| High-Traffic Page Score |
Compliance of top 100 visited pages |
100% |
| New Content Score |
Compliance of content published in last 30 days |
98% |
Issue Severity Breakdown
| Severity |
Definition |
Example Issues |
| Critical |
Blocks access for users with disabilities |
Missing form labels, no keyboard access, missing alt text |
| Serious |
Creates significant barriers |
Poor contrast, missing headings, non-descriptive links |
| Moderate |
Causes difficulty but workarounds exist |
Inconsistent navigation, missing skip links |
| Minor |
Best practice violations |
Missing lang attribute, redundant alt text |
Document Accessibility
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| PDF Compliance Rate |
Percentage of PDFs passing accessibility check |
90% |
| Documents Remediated |
Number of documents made accessible per month |
Tracked |
| Backlog Size |
Documents awaiting remediation |
Decreasing |
Multimedia Accessibility
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Caption Coverage |
Percentage of videos with captions |
100% |
| Caption Accuracy |
Word error rate of auto-captions reviewed |
<5% |
| Transcript Availability |
Percentage of audio with transcripts |
100% |
Operational Metrics
Complaint/Feedback Response
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Acknowledgment Time |
Time to acknowledge accessibility feedback |
<2 business days |
| Resolution Time (Critical) |
Time to resolve critical accessibility barriers |
<5 business days |
| Resolution Time (Serious) |
Time to resolve serious issues |
<15 business days |
| Resolution Time (Moderate) |
Time to resolve moderate issues |
<30 business days |
| Complaint Volume |
Number of accessibility complaints per month |
Decreasing |
| Satisfaction Score |
User satisfaction with resolution |
4.0/5.0 |
Consultation Services
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Consultations Completed |
Number of accessibility consultations per month |
Tracked |
| Response Time |
Time to initial consultation response |
<3 business days |
| Projects Reviewed |
New projects with accessibility review |
100% |
Testing Coverage
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Pages Scanned (Automated) |
Pages tested with automated tools monthly |
All public pages |
| Manual Audits Completed |
Full manual audits per quarter |
10 |
| User Testing Sessions |
Testing with users with disabilities per year |
4 |
Training Metrics
Training Completion
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Core Training Completion |
% of content creators completing basic training |
95% |
| Developer Training |
% of developers completing technical training |
100% |
| Annual Refresher |
% completing annual refresher training |
90% |
| New Hire Training |
Time to complete training for new hires |
<30 days |
Training Effectiveness
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Post-Training Assessment |
Average score on knowledge assessment |
80% |
| Behavior Change |
Reduction in errors in trained users' content |
50% |
| Training Satisfaction |
Participant satisfaction rating |
4.0/5.0 |
Accessibility Champions
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Champion Coverage |
% of units with designated champion |
100% |
| Champion Engagement |
% attending quarterly meetings |
80% |
| Champion-Led Initiatives |
Unit-level accessibility improvements |
Tracked |
Procurement Metrics
Vendor Accessibility
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| VPAT Collection Rate |
% of technology purchases with VPAT reviewed |
100% |
| Vendor Compliance Score |
Average accessibility score of new vendors |
85% |
| Contracts with A11y Terms |
% of tech contracts with accessibility requirements |
100% |
| Exception Documentation |
% of exceptions with remediation plans |
100% |
Existing Vendor Management
| Metric |
Description |
Target |
| Vendor Audit Rate |
% of critical vendors audited annually |
100% |
| Remediation Progress |
Vendor issues resolved within agreed timeline |
90% |
Reporting and Dashboards
Dashboard Components
The accessibility dashboard should include:
- Executive Summary:Overall compliance score with trend
- Issue Breakdown:Issues by severity and type
- Unit Comparison:Compliance by college/department
- Trend Charts:Progress over time
- Action Items:Open issues requiring attention
Report Types
| Report |
Audience |
Frequency |
Key Metrics |
| Executive Dashboard |
Leadership |
Monthly |
Overall score, trends, risks |
| Steering Committee |
Committee members |
Monthly |
All KPIs, action items |
| Unit Report |
Unit liaisons |
Quarterly |
Unit-specific metrics |
| Annual Report |
University leadership |
Annual |
Year-over-year progress |
Data Sources
- Automated scanning:SiteImprove, WAVE, axe
- Manual audits:Accessibility team assessments
- Feedback system:Accessibility complaint tracking
- Training LMS:Completion records
- Procurement system:VPAT reviews
Targets and Goals
Annual Goals (FY 2026)
| Goal |
Current |
Target |
| Overall web compliance |
78% |
95% |
| High-traffic page compliance |
85% |
100% |
| PDF compliance |
60% |
90% |
| Video caption coverage |
75% |
100% |
| Training completion |
82% |
95% |
Long-Term Vision
- 2026:Meet ADA Title II compliance deadline
- 2027:Achieve 98%+ automated compliance score
- 2028:Industry leader in higher ed accessibility