Case Study
Institutional Accessibility Program and Operating Model
Led development of a cross-functional accessibility operating model that moved accessibility from isolated improvement work into a structured program spanning websites, documents, forms, media, vendor systems, training, intake, reporting, and long-term WCAG 2.1 AA alignment.
The problem
Accessibility had long been part of Web Services practice, especially for public-facing websites and digital content. The college was already trying to make web content accessible where practical, but accessibility work was not yet organized as a formal institution-wide program.
Early awareness of evolving DOJ Title II accessibility requirements emerged through vendor outreach and industry conversations, including discussions around accessible campus mapping and higher education technology platforms. Those signals made it clear that accessibility expectations were becoming broader, more urgent, and more operationally complex.
As the issue was researched, the scope expanded quickly. Accessibility was not limited to web pages. It affected public website templates, CMS workflows, JotForm forms, PDF publishing practices, YouTube media, HTML newsletters, Microsoft 365 content, vendor platforms, and department-managed resources.
My role
At the time the initiative began, I served as Senior Coordinator of Web Design and Development. Although my formal role centered on web design, development, content management, and digital communications, the accessibility effort required broader work across governance, workflow design, vendor coordination, training support, reporting, and institutional communication.
I led development of the program framework by translating emerging accessibility requirements into practical operating components: affected systems, ownership expectations, intake paths, tracking structures, vendor documentation practices, reporting views, and remediation priorities.
The work required coordination across Web Services, Information Technology Services, Marketing, Library Services, Institutional Research, academic departments, student service areas, administrative offices, and third-party vendors. My focus was to build a repeatable model that could support accessibility over time rather than treat the work as a short-term remediation push.
The accessibility landscape
The college's digital ecosystem included multiple accessibility surfaces, each with different owners, risks, and remediation paths. A single audit or checklist could not address the full problem.
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.
Decision point
Several approaches were possible, but each had different risk, ownership, and sustainability tradeoffs.
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
I organized the program around a repeatable operating model rather than a single remediation list. The model used interconnected layers to support governance, issue management, remediation, vendor review, adoption, and reporting without placing every responsibility on one team.
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
The accessibility dashboard became one of the key program artifacts because it made the work visible. Instead of treating accessibility as disconnected activity across separate departments, tracking was organized around shared program categories.
I built and maintained dashboard views and supporting trackers that consolidated web remediation efforts, PDF review activities, accessibility requests, training participation, media accessibility work, and vendor documentation status. The reporting layer supported leadership visibility into program status, priority areas, remediation activity, and follow-up needs across a distributed set of owners.
Document and PDF strategy
A significant portion of the accessibility challenge involved long-standing PDF publishing practices. The program did not treat every document the same way. Some documents needed remediation, some needed review, and some content was better handled as accessible HTML instead of continuing as a downloadable file.
The strategy combined internal review, priority tracking, vendor-supported remediation, and web-first publishing guidance. CommonLook and Allyant-supported workflows were evaluated and used where appropriate, while departments were encouraged to reconsider whether certain recurring content needed to remain in PDF form.
Vendor accessibility governance
Accessibility risk also existed in third-party platforms and services. To support more consistent review, I established a centralized SharePoint-based repository for VPATs, Accessibility Conformance Reports, vendor contacts, review status, ownership notes, and mitigation tracking.
This work brought accessibility into vendor and procurement conversations by establishing a consistent documentation and review approach for new systems, renewals, and high-impact student-facing tools. The objective was not to expose vendor shortcomings publicly, but to create a maintainable process for institutional awareness and follow-up.
Training and adoption
Long-term accessibility depended on more than central remediation. Content creators, departments, faculty, staff, and operational areas needed clearer expectations, practical guidance, and measurable participation.
Training deployment was supported across faculty and staff populations, with completion tracked through institutional learning systems. Staff completion reached 185 of 223 participants, while faculty completion reached 58 of 178 participants at the time of reporting.
The training work helped reinforce that accessibility was not only a Web Services task. Departments remained responsible for the content and materials they created, while Web Services helped provide direction, tools, processes, and support. This work influenced how departments approached content creation, accessibility ownership, and vendor evaluation across the institution.
What changed
The strongest result was not one individual remediation category. The bigger change was that accessibility became easier to see, assign, discuss, and manage.
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 primary outcome was the establishment of a sustainable, institution-wide accessibility program model rather than a one-time remediation effort. The result was a repeatable framework that allowed accessibility to be managed, tracked, and owned across distributed teams rather than addressed only through isolated remediation efforts.
Program structure
Established a working accessibility operating model connecting governance, intake, remediation, vendor review, reporting, and training support.
Digital systems
Expanded accessibility work across CMS templates, public pages, forms, PDFs, media, email communications, and third-party systems.
Institutional adoption
Moved accessibility from isolated improvement work toward a shared responsibility model supported by training, documentation, and cross-functional coordination.
- More than 100 public-facing web pages remediated
- More than 50 high-priority PDFs identified and tracked for remediation
- Accessibility dashboard and supporting trackers deployed
- Centralized VPAT and Accessibility Conformance Report repository created
- 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
Long-term impact
The accessibility initiative became more than a remediation effort. It changed how accessibility could be surfaced, assigned, measured, and discussed across the institution as digital systems, content practices, vendor tools, and federal expectations continue to evolve.
The lasting outcome was not a remediated website or a completed checklist. It was a working model that allowed accessibility to be identified, tracked, assigned, discussed, and improved across content creators, departments, technologies, and future initiatives.
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.