Case Study
Institutional Accessibility Program and Operating Model
I translated an institution-wide accessibility challenge into a shared operating model: clear ownership, prioritized remediation, and a repeatable process for intake, vendor review, training, and reporting. The program connects work across websites, documents, forms, media, and communications to support ongoing WCAG 2.1 AA alignment.
The problem
Web Services already addressed accessibility in public websites and digital content, but the college needed a formal program with consistent ownership and review across departments.
Vendor outreach and industry conversations, including accessible campus mapping discussions, helped surface the broader scope of DOJ Title II requirements. Research identified responsibilities across CMS workflows, PDFs, JotForm, YouTube, HTML email, Microsoft 365, and third-party platforms.
Each area had different content owners and remediation needs. The challenge was establishing a shared process for prioritizing work, assigning responsibility, and tracking progress.
My contribution
I helped develop the program framework, remediation strategy, workflow design, vendor coordination, training support, and leadership reporting as Senior Coordinator of Web Design and Development. As Director of Web Strategy & Digital Experience, I continued responsibility for accessibility governance and oversight of vendor-accessibility processes, reporting, and related records.
I translated the requirements into affected systems, ownership expectations, intake paths, tracking structures, vendor documentation practices, and remediation priorities.
I coordinated with Web Services, ITS, Marketing, Library Services, Institutional Research, academic and administrative departments, student service areas, and vendors to establish a repeatable model for ongoing accessibility work.
Cross-department planning
In July 2025 planning, I proposed shared processes for vendor accessibility documentation, content inventories, review, and training. I brought ownership questions into discussions with ITS, Marketing/Web Services, and accessibility stakeholders so responsibilities across systems, vendors, and instruction could be addressed together.
In July 2026 leadership discussions, I asked which enrollment, workforce, healthcare, transfer, and academic priorities needed greater content focus, and where executive support could strengthen participation and accountability. This connected web and accessibility planning to the college’s broader priorities.
The accessibility landscape
The program covered content and systems with different owners and remediation paths.
Web and CMS
Public-facing pages, program content, CMS templates, structured content patterns, and recurring website updates managed through CloudCannon and Jekyll workflows.
Documents and forms
PDFs, downloadable documents, JotForm-based processes, department-created files, and content that needed either remediation or conversion to more accessible web formats.
Media and vendors
YouTube content, captioning considerations, HTML email communications, vendor platforms, VPATs, Accessibility Conformance Reports, and third-party accessibility evidence.
Key decision
The main decision was how to address a large volume of content while establishing ownership for future work.
Option 1: Remediate everything immediately
This would show visible activity, but the volume of content and distributed ownership model made broad remediation difficult to sustain without better structure.
Option 2: Treat accessibility as a web-only issue
This would keep the work narrower, but it would miss forms, documents, media, vendor systems, Microsoft 365 content, and department-owned materials.
Option 3: Build an operating model
The selected approach created governance, intake, dashboard reporting, remediation paths, vendor documentation practices, and training support before scaling the work.
The accessibility operating model
The operating model connects governance, intake, remediation, vendor review, training, and reporting. Responsibilities are shared across the teams that own the content and systems.
1. Governance and oversight
A cross-functional accessibility coordination structure brought together Web Services, ITS, Library Services, Institutional Research, instructional support functions, content owners, and other institutional stakeholders.
2. Intake and issue management
Accessibility requests and concerns were routed through defined intake and triage processes instead of informal one-off requests.
3. Auditing and remediation
Review work expanded across website templates, pages, PDFs, JotForm forms, media, and recurring publishing workflows using tools such as Lighthouse, Pa11y, and Screaming Frog.
4. Vendor review
A centralized SharePoint-based repository supported VPAT and ACR collection, review status, ownership notes, and vendor accessibility documentation tracking.
5. Training and adoption
Faculty and staff training efforts were supported through institutional learning systems, documentation, practical guidance, and department-level communication.
6. Reporting and visibility
Dashboard reporting connected remediation progress, training participation, vendor records, accessibility requests, and document review activity into a more visible program view.
Dashboard and tracking infrastructure
I organized tracking around shared program categories so leadership could see progress across departments.
I built and maintained dashboards and trackers covering web and PDF remediation, requests, training participation, media work, and vendor documentation. They show priorities, progress, ownership, and follow-up needs.
Document and PDF strategy
Long-standing PDF publishing practices created recurring remediation work. The strategy covers an inventory of more than 300 PDFs, prioritizing remediation, accessible web alternatives, and retirement of outdated content.
The approach combined internal review, priority tracking, vendor-supported remediation, and web-first guidance. CommonLook and Allyant workflows were evaluated and used where appropriate. Work on source-document accessibility, editor guidance, and publishing expectations also aims to prevent new barriers rather than repeatedly repairing files after publication.
Vendor accessibility governance
I established a SharePoint repository for VPATs, Accessibility Conformance Reports, vendor contacts, review status, ownership notes, and mitigation tracking.
The vendor-accessibility process connects evidence collection with review, ownership, follow-up, renewals, and reporting to support procurement and system-owner decisions.
Training and adoption
Content owners needed practical guidance, clear expectations, and measurable training participation.
Faculty and staff training was supported through institutional learning systems. As of October 15, 2026, training records showed completion by 201 of 237 staff (84.8%) and 90 of 204 faculty (44.1%). Faculty figures include Canvas self-acknowledgments alongside Vector assessments.
I developed a department engagement model that keeps ongoing content responsibility with departments, supported by Web Services standards, guidance, review, and escalation. The guide is being reviewed by the accessibility group.
What changed
Accessibility became easier to see, assign, discuss, and manage across departments and content types.
Before
- Accessibility improvements were often handled project by project
- Ownership varied across departments and content types
- Vendor accessibility documentation was not centrally managed
- PDF and document practices created recurring remediation pressure
- Progress reporting was limited and distributed
After
- Accessibility intake and triage followed defined workflows
- Dashboard reporting provided visibility into major program areas
- VPAT and ACR documentation was organized in a centralized repository
- High-priority pages and documents could be identified and tracked
- Training participation became measurable across employee groups
Results
The program established shared ownership and repeatable review practices across web, documents, forms, media, communications, and vendors. Documented results include:
- More than 100 public-facing web pages remediated
- Document accessibility strategy covering 300+ PDFs, with phased remediation, accessible alternatives, and retirement decisions
- Accessibility dashboard and supporting trackers deployed
- Centralized VPAT and Accessibility Conformance Report repository created, with documented vendor-review and follow-up practices
- Accessibility intake and triage processes established
- Training participation tracked through institutional learning systems
- Accessibility review practices incorporated into vendor evaluation discussions
- Accessibility scope expanded across web, documents, forms, media, communications, and vendors
Looking ahead
Continued work focuses on legacy content remediation, accessibility maturity across departments, vendor documentation review, training adoption, dashboard reporting, and reducing future reliance on inaccessible publishing practices.