English
Français
Nederlands
Español
Enter accessibility scoring rubrics, or measurement frameworks that better reflect how accessibility issues impact users.
For example, one document might have 50 issues yet score better than another document with only five issues. While it might seem counterintuitive, the issue types and user impact matters. This is why accessibility scoring rubrics are now important tools for organizations as they manage digital accessibility.
Unlike traditional grading systems that apply uniform criteria, accessibility scoring rubrics can be customized to reflect an organization’s specific accessibility priorities, available resources, and strategic goals.
Accessibility Scoring Rubric Types and Use Cases
YuJa Panorama offers a variety of accessibility scoring rubrics:
Dynamic Severity Models assign scores within ranges based on the highest severity level detected. If a document contains minor, major, and severe issues, the score falls within the range of the most serious problem found. This helps ensure that critical barriers significantly impact the overall accessibility rating while still allowing for nuanced scoring within severity categories.
Organizations often choose this model when they want scores that reflect the most serious accessibility barriers while maintaining granular feedback for improvement efforts. It’s particularly valuable for institutions that need to prioritize remediation efforts based on user impact.
Static Severity Models assign fixed scores based solely on the highest severity level present. A document with any severe issues receives the lowest possible score, regardless of how many minor problems it might also contain. This binary approach creates clear, unambiguous scoring that emphasizes the most critical barriers.
This framework works well for organizations that need straightforward prioritization systems or when working with teams that respond better to clear, definitive scoring rather than nuanced ranges.
Element-Based Models evaluate accessibility by examining whether specific document elements—paragraphs, tables, headers, lists, links, images, videos, and pages—pass or fail accessibility checks. The score reflects the proportion of accessible elements rather than the total number of individual issues.
Educational institutions often gravitate toward this approach because it aligns with how content creators think about document structure. It’s particularly effective when working with faculty who build modular content or when the goal is encouraging systematic accessibility practices across different content types.
Weight-Based Models evaluate all failed checks according to assigned weights, with severity levels influencing how much each issue affects the overall score. Organizations can customize these weights to reflect their specific priorities and user needs.
The real power of weight-based scoring lies in customization. Organizations can adjust the weight values for minor, major, and severe issues to reflect their specific priorities. For example, if an institution wants to emphasize fixing severe barriers that completely block access, they might assign severe issues a weight of 10 while keeping minor issues at a weight of 1. This flexibility ensures that accessibility scores truly reflect what matters most to each organization’s users and goals.
Detraction Models treat failed accessibility checks as twice as impactful as passed checks, creating scoring systems that incentivize resolving problems rather than simply maintaining accessible elements. This methodology encourages active remediation efforts.
Content creators often respond well to this framework because it clearly demonstrates the value of fixing accessibility issues and provides measurable improvement pathways.
Strict Detraction Models begin with perfect scores and subtract points based on issue weights and severity levels. This approach rewards comprehensive accessible design while providing clear improvement pathways through systematic issue resolution.
Using the right model means teams can quickly identify what needs attention, see the impact of remediation, and track progress over time. This also helps teams allocate time and resources where they’ll have maximum impact.
The ability to select from a variety of rubrics that align with organizational priorities helps ensure that no matter your accessibility goals, there’s a rubric that can help achieve those goals.
