Accessibility Maturity Model

Accessibility Maturity Model
Accessibility Maturity Model
W3C Group Note
04 November 2025
More details about this document
This version:
Latest published version:
Latest editor's draft:
History:
Commit history
Editors:
David Fazio
W3C Invited Expert
Sheri Byrne-Haber
W3C Invited Expert
Janina Sajka
W3C Invited Expert
Charles LaPierre
Benetech
Neha Manik Jadhav
W3C Invited Expert
Feedback:
GitHub w3c/maturity-model
pull requests
new issue
open issues
2025
World Wide Web Consortium
W3C
liability
trademark
and
permissive document license
rules apply.
Abstract
The Accessibility Maturity Model (AMM) provides a framework that offers individuals and organizations of all sizes
a roadmap, including benchmarks, 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,
NGO
s 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.
The AMM includes guidance for public-facing content deployment and the provision of public-facing, interactive services,
as well as internal activities and
HR
functions that are related to employee relations.
It provides a framework for evaluating operational effectiveness to adhere to accessibility principles, identify gaps in
the effectiveness of operations to support accessibility, and follow a continuous process of accessibility improvement.
It aligns staff teams toward common goals and objectives.
The AMM provides actionable guidance for establishing or improving policies, employee communication, training, and tools.
It also includes a method to measure and document organizational, cultural, and technical capabilities.
Status of This Document
This section describes the status of this
document at the time of its publication. A list of current
W3C
publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found
in the
W3C
standards and drafts index
The group welcomes your feedback any time and especially encourages comments by organizations implementing the model. Please provide all technical comments during this round of review, to make it easier for the group to transition this document into a
W3C
Group Note.
To comment, file an issue in the
Maturity Model GitHub repository
. Create a separate GitHub issue for each topic, rather than commenting on multiple topics in a single issue. It is free to create a GitHub account to file issues. Before commenting, please first review the Maturity Model GitHub repository for related comments. If filing issues in GitHub is not feasible, email
public-maturity@w3.org
(mail archive of previous comments).
This document was published by the
Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group
as
a Group Note using the
Note track
This Group Note is endorsed by
the
Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group
, but is not endorsed by
W3C
itself nor its
Members.
The
W3C
Patent
Policy
does not carry any licensing requirements or commitments on this
document.
This document is governed by the
18 August 2025
W3C
Process Document
1.
Introduction
1.1
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 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.
1.1.1
How To Use The Accessibility Maturity Model
Each dimension includes a short description of maturity levels that serve as benchmarks for evaluating your operations.
The role of an evaluator is to determine which maturity level is supported by the proof points within your organization, for each dimension.
For example, the Communications Dimension is at the “Launch” level if the organization has written plans in place
to make internal and external communications accessible. They should also comply with any applicable accessibility regulations.
Still, those plans haven’t materialized into a cohesive, cross-organizational roadmap.
If you were to claim this maturity level for your Communications Dimension, then the proof points that you uncover during your evaluation must support this claim.
We provide a sample of applicable proof points that may be used. Proof points may be extended as described in Section 1.1.2.
Recommended Steps to Get Started
Form a review team:
Include cross-functional representatives, as maturity depends on collaboration.
Gather evidence:
Collect documentation, training data, and metrics reflecting current—not aspirational—practices.
Validate findings:
Engage experts and people with disabilities to confirm accuracy and credibility.
Create a corrective action plan:
Define goals, milestones, owners, and timelines within existing systems.
Reassess regularly:
Track progress, quickly identify areas that are regressing, and maintain momentum.
The AMM works best as a tool for conversation and shared responsibility.
Accessibility maturity grows when leaders measure what matters, allocate resources, and act on results to create sustainable improvement.
1.1.2
Customizing the Maturity Model
The AMM may be customized by the organization performing the
accessibility maturity assessment. This customization allows users to
retain the exact structure of dimensions, maturity levels, and
progression logic, while making the model application tailored to the
needs of the organization. Some examples of AMM customizations include:
Omitting proof points (or portions of proof points) that do not apply
to the organization, such as references to mobile apps if the
organization does not have one.
Renaming terms to better fit your industry, for example, changing
“proof points” to “evidence,” “ICT” to “Hardware and Software,” or
“ACR/VPAT” to “accessibility certification documents.”
Refining wording within proof points and dimensions so they reflect
the terms and practices used in your organization, such as replacing
“contract language for ICT procurement” with “accessibility clauses in
vendor agreements.”
This flexibility makes the AMM application more relevant and actionable to an organization, while keeping it aligned with the
W3C
framework. We recommend that your organization maintain a record of such adaptations, so that in the event that the results of your maturity model assessment are provided to a third party, they can understand, and map, what updates were made
1.2
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.
1.2.1
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.
2.
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.
2.1
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.
Oversight and 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, Accessibility Conformance Report
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.
2.2
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.
2.3
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.
2.4
Experimental Maturity Model Assessment Spreadsheet
The Maturity Model Assessment Spreadsheet is a detailed prototype that was designed by the Task Force to track the accessibility maturity
evaluation process outlined in this publication and to assess the the minimum viability of the Maturity Model. We expect to develop, and
provide, a more robust tool, for the purposes of utilizing this Accessibility Maturity Model, in the future.
The
Accessibility Maturity
Model Assessment spreadsheet
contains seven sheets, one for each
dimension
Editor's note
This Assessment Spreadsheet is experimental and is a work in progress.
3.
Accessibility Maturity Per Dimension
3.1
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 th or provides alternatives.
3.1.1
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.
3.1.2
Proof Points
Communications
proof points
may include but are not limited to:
3.1.2.1
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).
3.1.2.2
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.
3.1.2.3
Accessible Communications Training
Accessible communications training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this
dimension
's
proof points
3.1.2.4
Dimension Goals and Metrics
Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
3.2
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
Accessibility Conformance Report
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.
3.2.1
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.
3.2.2
Proof Points for ICT Development Lifecycle Dimension
ICT development lifecycle
proof points
may include but are not limited to:
3.2.2.1
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
3.2.2.2
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
3.2.2.3
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
3.2.2.4
User Experience
User research includes disabilities
Test subject forms, releases, instructions, or other materials are accessible
3.2.2.5
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.
3.2.2.6
ICT Development Training
ICT Development and Test training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this
dimension's
proof points
3.2.2.7
Dimension Goals and Metrics
Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
3.3
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.
3.3.1
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.
3.3.2
Proof Points
Knowledge and skills proof points may include but are not limited to:
3.3.2.1
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
3.3.2.2
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)
3.3.2.3
Dimension Integration
Training and learning programs should be integrated into proof points for each dimension
3.3.2.4
Dimension Goals and Metrics
Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
3.4
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.
3.4.1
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
3.4.2
Proof Points
Oversight & Culture
proof points
may include but are not limited to:
3.4.2.1
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
3.4.2.2
Financial Commitment
financial plan is developed for activities needed to advance maturity across Dimensions
funding is committed for activities to advance Dimensions through maturity
3.4.2.3
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.
3.4.2.4
General Training
accessibility-related training to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this dimension's
proof points
3.4.2.5
Dimension Goals and Metrics
Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
3.5
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.
3.5.1
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.
3.5.2
Proof Points
Personnel proof points may include but are not limited to:
3.5.2.1
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
3.5.2.2
Accessible Job Application Platform
hiring tools, job boards, etc., meet a specified level of accessibility
recruiting communications meet a specified level of accessibility
accessibility audit of jobs' website
accessibility audit of the application process
3.5.2.3
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
3.5.2.4
Accessibility Training Programs
Accessibility Training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this dimension’s
proof points
3.5.2.5
Dimension Goals and Metrics
Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
3.6
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.
3.6.1
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.
3.6.2
Proof Points
Procurement
proof points
may include but are not limited to:
3.6.2.1
Policy Documentation
published ICT Accessibility Procurement Policy
accessibility requirements and other information are communicated to vendors
3.6.2.2
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
3.6.2.3
Consistent Evaluation Process and Methods
proof that accessibility evaluations are performed on solicitation responses.
documented evaluation methodology
submission scoring methodologies
3.6.2.4
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
3.6.2.5
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
3.6.2.6
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
3.6.2.7
Dimension Goals and Metrics
Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
3.7
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.
3.7.1
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
3.7.2
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
3.7.2.1
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
3.7.2.2
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
3.7.2.3
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
3.7.2.4
Accessibility Training Programs
Accessibility Training in place to build and maintain relevant skills in support of this dimension’s
proof points
3.7.2.5
Dimension Goals and Metrics
Dimension-related goals are established, metrics are defined, and progress is tracked
A.
Appendix
A.1
Research and Standards Review
During the development of the 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:
California Community Colleges Accessibility Capability Maturity Model (CCC ACMM)
The CCC ACMM addresses California’s community colleges' unique needs by detailing five progressive stages across governance, content creation, procurement, and staff development, acknowledging the decentralized nature of higher education.
A.2
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
Accessibility/Disability/Inclusion influencer
Accessibility specialist/helper/org
AT developer
Authoring tool developer
Call center representative
Chief Accessibility Officer
Content provider/producer
Designer
Developer
Disability organization member
Evaluation tool developer
Government policy regulator or specialist
Instructor/trainer
IT manager
Legal representative
Organizational policy-maker
Platform developer (HW, OS, Browser)
Product manager
Professional/Industry Org/Assoc
Project manager
QA specialist
Researcher
Standards developer
Teaching resource developer
Technology innovator
W3C
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
Employees with Disabilities
User Experience (UX) Team
Diversity and Inclusion Officer
Public Relations/Communications
Procurement Team
A.2.1
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.
A.2.1.1
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
A.2.1.2
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
A.2.1.3
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
A.2.1.4
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
A.2.1.5
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
A.2.1.6
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
A.2.1.7
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
A.2.1.8
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
B.
Glossary
The following terms are used in this document:
accommodation
Modifications or adjustments that enable an individual with a disability to gain access and successfully
complete tasks.
ACR
Accessibility Conformance Report: A document that formally summarizes the extent to which an information
and communications technology (ICT) product or service conforms to international accessibility guidelines
and standards.
The report's format is based on industry-recognized standards. ACRs are used by buyers to understand how
accessible a product is, and any potential deficiencies.
communities of practice
A community of practice is a group of people who share a common concern, a set of problems, or an interest
in a topic and who come together to fulfill both individual and group goals. Communities of practice often
focus on sharing best practices and creating new knowledge to advance a domain of professional practice.
Interaction on an ongoing basis is an important part of this.
contract lifecycle
The steps and processes related to the procurement of an ICT product or service beginning with the
initialization of the solicitation process, response evaluations, vendor selection for award, implementation
of the contract requirements, monitoring over the life of the contract including renewals until the contract
reaches its end date.
customer
External or internal users of an organization’s products or services, including but not limited to
students, members of the public, employees, and contractors.
dimension
An aspect on which an organization measures its accessibility maturity.
Information and Communications Technology
(ICT)
Information technology and other equipment, systems, technologies, or processes, for which the principal
function is the creation, manipulation, storage, display, receipt, or transmission of electronic data and
information, as well as any associated content.
Examples of ICT include, but are not limited to: computers and peripheral equipment; information kiosks and
transaction machines; telecommunications equipment; customer premises equipment; multifunction office
machines; software; applications; websites; videos; and electronic documents.
maturity level
Used to signify the attainment or lack thereof of a specific maturity model
dimension
organization
Include, but are not limited to:
A government agency (Federal, state/province, county/city, municipality, etc.)
Any type of business entity (including a sole proprietorship, corporation, or LLC)
Learning institutions (university, college, district school system)
A nongovernmental organization (
NGO
) or non-profit
Subunit(s) of an organization where accessibility maturity is needed
proof point
Are criteria for accessibility maturity supported by evidence.
C.
Acknowledgements
Key contributors, section editors and participants active in the Maturity Model Subgroup at the time of publication.
Jake Abma (ING Groep N.V.)
Irfan Ali (Black Rock)
Nadine Auer
Nichole Bui (Rhonda Weiss Center for Accessible IDEA Data)
Sheri Byrne-Haber (VMWare)
David Fazio (Invited Expert)
Jeff Kline (Jeff Kline Accessibility Consulting)
Charles LaPierre (Benetech)
Mark Miller (TPGi)
Mary Jo Mueller (IBM)
Brian O'Day (Intel)
Susana Pallero (Invited Expert)
Raph de Rooij (Community Group Member)
Janina Sajka (Invited Expert)
Lori Samuels (NBC Universal)
Stacey Swinehart Ganderson (Invited Expert)
Lionel Wolberger (User Way)
Jennifer X Zhang (Invited Expert, RaLytics)
Ruoxi Ran (
W3C
staff contact)
Neha Manik Jadhav (Invited Expert)
Angela Barker
Jennifer Evans (Deque)
Keith (Dr. Keith) Newton
Susana Pallero
Giacomo Petri
D.
Change Log
For a list of all issues addressed, refer to the
Maturity Model Task Force's issue tracker
Substantive changes since the
Public Review DRAFT 08/28/2025
New introductory section added - Customizing the Maturity Model
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 3.7.2 Proof Points
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 2.1 Dimensions
§ 3.1.2.2 Accessible Direct Communications
(2)
§ 3.2 ICT Development Lifecycle
§ 3.2.1 How to Evaluate ICT Development Lifecycle Maturity Level
§ 3.2.2.5 Quality Review Through Release
§ A.2.1.1 Use Case One
§ A.2.1.2 Use Case Two
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 3.4.1 How to Evaluate Oversight and Culture Maturity Level
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 3.6.2.5 Accessibility in Procurement Program Management
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 2.1 Dimensions
§ 3.1.2.2 Accessible Direct Communications
§ 3.2.2.3 Development
§ 3.7.2 Proof Points
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 2. Maturity Model Structure
§ 2.1 Dimensions
§ 2.2 Proof Points
§ 2.3 Maturity Levels
§ 2.4 Experimental Maturity Model Assessment Spreadsheet
§ 3.1.1 How to Evaluate Communications' Maturity Level
§ 3.1.2.3 Accessible Communications Training
§ 3.2.1 How to Evaluate ICT Development Lifecycle Maturity Level
§ 3.3.1 How to Evaluate Knowledge and Skills Maturity Level
§ 3.4.1 How to Evaluate Oversight and Culture Maturity Level
§ 3.5.1 How to Evaluate Personnel Maturity Level
§ 3.6.1 How to Evaluate Procurement Maturity Level
§ 3.7.1 How to Evaluate Support Maturity Level
§ B. Glossary
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 1.1 About the Accessibility Maturity Model
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 2. Maturity Model Structure
§ 2.2 Proof Points
§ 2.3 Maturity Levels
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 1.1 About the Accessibility Maturity Model
§ 2. Maturity Model Structure
(2)
§ 2.1 Dimensions
§ 3.1 Communications
§ 3.3 Knowledge and Skills
§ 3.4 Oversight and Culture
§ 3.5 Personnel
§ 3.6 Procurement
Permalink
Referenced in:
§ 2. Maturity Model Structure
§ 2.2 Proof Points
§ 2.3 Maturity Levels
§ 3.1.2 Proof Points
§ 3.1.2.3 Accessible Communications Training
§ 3.2.2 Proof Points for ICT Development Lifecycle Dimension
§ 3.2.2.6 ICT Development Training
§ 3.3 Knowledge and Skills
§ 3.4.2 Proof Points
§ 3.4.2.4 General Training
§ 3.6.2 Proof Points
§ 3.7.2 Proof Points