Template for Accessibility Evaluation Reports
This document is a draft under development by the Education and Outreach Working Group. It was last updated
on 3 October 2002. Comments are welcome at wai-eo-editors @ w3.org.
This document presents a recommended format for communicating results
of the evaluation of Web site accessibility according to the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0. A consistent and comprehensive evaluation report format
can help ensure effective evaluations as well as accurate comparisons of
accessibility levels over time and between different Web sites.
Suggested items in the report format may vary depending the context.
Words in brackets [...] are intended to be filled in with information from
the actual review. Related documents describing the evaluation method, and
organization of review teams, are listed in the References section below.
summary - background
- web site - reviewer(s) -
review process - results & actions
- references - appendices
1. Executive Summary
This report describes the conformance of the _______ Web site with
W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0.
The review process is described in Section 5 below and is based on the W3C's
Conformance Evaluation method as described in Evaluating Web
Sites for Accessibility.
Based on this evaluation, the ________ Web site [meets/ does not meet/
is close to meeting] WCAG 1.0, Conformance Level Double A. Detailed review
results are available in Section 6 below. Resources for follow-up study are
listed in Section 7 below. Feedback on this evaluation is welcomed.
2. Background about Evaluation
Conformance evaluation of Web accessibility requires a combination
of semi-automated evaluation tools and manual evaluation
by an experienced reviewer. The evaluation results in this report are based
on evaluation conducted on the following date(s): _______. The Web site may
have changed since that time. Additional information on the evaluation process
is available in Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility.
3. Web Site Reviewed
- [Name of Web site]
- [and purpose of site, if relevant]
- [Base URL of site]
- [URL's included in review]
- [if dynamically generated Web site, provide sample screen captures
to demonstrate what was reviewed]
- [indicate which pages were reviewed manually as opposed to by semi-automated
- [URL's excluded from review]
- [Exact date, or range of dates, on which review conducted]
- [Natural language(s) of Web site]
- [Name of reviewer or review team, unless anonymous]
- [Organization with which reviewer(s) is/are affiliated, if relevant
and if not anonymous]
- [Contact information for reviewer(s) or reviewer(s) organization,
- [Reviewer(s) areas of expertise, by reference to "expertise of review
teams" in Review Teams for Evaluating Web Site Accessibility]
- [Natural language(s) with which reviewer(s) is/are fluent, or familiar]
5. Review Process
- [Identify WCAG 1.0 Level for which conformance was tested, e.g.
WCAG 1.0 Level A, Double A, Triple A]
- [Used WCAG 1.0 checklist (essential)]
- [Identify evaluation and validation tools used,
and versions thereof]
- [Description of manual reviews (usability testing of accessibility
6. Results and Recommended Actions
- [Interpretative summary of review results]
- [e.g. this Web site appears to [meet/ not meet/ is close to meeting]
WCAG 1.0 Level A, Double A, Triple A, etc.]
- [accessibility features in which this site is strong include _______]
- [recommended priorities for addressing inaccessible features of
- [Detailed results, structured according to WCAG 1.0 Checklist]
- [include links to WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints and Techniques for all non-conformant
- [attach or link to specific reports in appendices, e.g. output
of validators and evaluation tools]
- [provide recommendations for addressing non-conformant checkpoints]
- [Describe or point to a suggested program of on-going monitoring
of Web site accessibility, re-evaluation of authoring
- [Attach detailed validator and evaluation tool reports here]
Last updated 3 October, 2002 by Judy Brewer (jbrewer @ w3.org)