Cognitive Web Accessibility Assessments: Summary Results By Web Site

Listed below are the summaries of results for the cognitive Web accessibility assessments. They are listed in order by date performed. Each shows the site name, the assessment date, the criteria met, the number of points recorded and the conclusion.

There are 10 possible points, one for each criterion. To be judged accessible, a Web site must minimally meet all (4) design criteria and all (3) content criteria based upon WebAIM's latest Cognitive Web Accessibility Checklist. Up to 3 points for design-related criteria add to the total score.

• 20 of 100 Web sites have been assessed to date.
• The average score is 5.
• The number of sites judged accessible is 2.

Summaries of Results

• The Arc of the United States. Assessment Date: 9/19/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (1):
    • Focus and Structure;
  • Design Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Total Score: 1 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • No accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. Assessment Date: 9/6/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (2):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
  • Design Criteria Met (3):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (2):
    • Accessibility Standards;
    • Explanation of Accessibility Features;
  • Total Score: 7 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Accessible design effort is readily apparent, but content has accessibility problems.
• Learning Disability Wales. Assessment Date: 7/12/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (2):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
  • Design Criteria Met (2):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Explanation of Accessibility Features;
  • Total Score: 5 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Some accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Alzheimer's Foundation of America. Assessment Date: 6/21/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (2):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
  • Design Criteria Met (1):
    • Transformability;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Total Score: 3 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Little accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Autistic Self Advocacy Network Australia. Assessment Date: 5/23/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Design Criteria Met (2):
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 3 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Some accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Brain Injury Matters. Assessment Date: 5/23/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Design Criteria Met (2):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 3 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Some accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Clear Thoughts. Assessment Date: 5/23/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (3):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
    • MultiModality;
  • Design Criteria Met (3):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 7 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Accessible design effort is readily apparent. Content effort is strong.
• Bipolar Scotland. Assessment Date: 5/16/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Design Criteria Met (4):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
    • Assistive Technology Compatibility;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (3):
    • Accessibility Standards;
    • Accessibility Statement;
    • Explanation of Accessibility Features;
  • Total Score: 7 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Accessible design effort is strong, but content has accessibility problems.
• The International Dyslexia Foundation. Assessment Date: 5/9/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Design Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Total Score: 0 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • No accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Down Syndrome Victoria. Assessment Date: 5/9/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (2):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
  • Design Criteria Met (4):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
    • Assistive Technology Compatibility;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 7 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Accessible design effort is strong, but content has accessibility problems.
• Learning Disabilities Association of America. Assessment Date: 5/3/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (2):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • MultiModality;
  • Design Criteria Met (1):
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 4 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Little accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Indian Head Injury Foundation. Assessment Date: 5/3/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (1):
    • Focus and Structure;
  • Design Criteria Met (1):
    • Transformability;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Total Score: 2 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Little accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• The Autism Acceptance Project. Assessment Date: 5/3/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Design Criteria Met (2):
    • Transformability;
    • Assistive Technology Compatibility;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 3 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Some accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Alzheimer’s Association. Assessment Date: 4/25/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (1):
    • Readability and Language
    ;
  • Design Criteria Met (2):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (0):
    • None.
  • Total Score: 3 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Some accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• People First. Assessment Date: 4/25/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (3):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
    • MultiModality;
  • Design Criteria Met (4):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
    • Assistive Technology Compatibility;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (3):
    • Accessibility Standards;
    • Accessibility Statement;
    • Explanation of Accessibility Features;
  • Total Score: 10 points
  • Conclusion: Accessible.
    • Accessible design- and content efforts are terrific.
• Mencap. Assessment Date: 4/24/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (3):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
    • MultiModality;
  • Design Criteria Met (4):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
    • Assistive Technology Compatibility;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (3):
    • Accessibility Standards;
    • Accessibility Statement;
    • Explanation of Accessibility Features;
  • Total Score: 10 points
  • Conclusion: Accessible.
    • Accessible design- and content efforts are terrific.
• Council for Exceptional Children. Assessment Date: 4/24/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (1):
    • Focus and Structure;
  • Design Criteria Met (4):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
    • Assistive Technology Compatibility;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (2):
    • Accessibility Standards;
    • Accessibility Statement;
  • Total Score: 7 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Accessible design effort is strong, but content has accessibility problems.
• Speaking For Ourselves. Assessment Date: 4/24/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (2):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
  • Design Criteria Met (2):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (2):
    • Accessibility Standards;
    • Accessibility Statement;
  • Total Score: 6 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Some accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities. Assessment Date: 4/11/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (1):
    • Focus and Structure;
  • Design Criteria Met (1):
    • Consistency;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 3 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Little accessible design effort. Content has accessibility problems.
• Down’s Syndrome Scotland. Assessment Date: 3/14/2010
  • Content Criteria Met (2):
    • Focus and Structure;
    • Readability and Language
    ;
  • Design Criteria Met (4):
    • Consistency;
    • Transformability;
    • Orientation and Error Prevention/Recovery;
    • Assistive Technology Compatibility;
  • Design-Related Criteria Met (1):
    • Accessibility Standards;
  • Total Score: 7 points
  • Conclusion: Inaccessible.
    • Accessible design effort is strong, but content has accessibility problems.

Notes

On May 20, 2010, I changed the accessibility-success criteria. To be judged accessible, a Web site must minimally meet all (4) design criteria and all (3) content criteria based upon WebAIM's latest Cognitive Web Accessibility Checklist. As a result, the following Web sites changed from a judgment of accessible to one of inaccessible: Down Syndrome Victoria, Council for Exceptional Children, and Downs Syndrome Scotland.