ICT Accessibility Policy Need/Engagement Matrix
As shown in Table 1 on the following page, the ICT Accessibility Policy Need/Engagement Matrix is a tool that characterizes the criticality of policies to ICT accessibility, and assists in the prioritization of policies with the greatest need of remediation. It is structured according to two intersecting factors, the Sufficiency of ICT accessibility information and the Importance to ICT accessibility considerations, the latter of which is a combination of the Relevance and Level of Detail criteria, as described above.
Table 1. ICT Accessibility Policy Need/Engagement Matrix.
|Blank matrix origin||Importance to ICT Accessibility Considerations
(Combination of Relevance and Level of Detail)
|Not Very Important/Not Important||Somewhat Important||Important||High Importance||Very High Importance|
|Sufficiency of ICT Accessibility Information||Essential ICT Accessibility Information Missing||Moderate||High||Very High||Critical||Critical|
|Inadequate, Contains Some ICT Accessibility Language||Low||Moderate||High||Very High||Critical|
|Somewhat Sufficient||Low||Moderate||Moderate||High||Very High|
|Mostly Sufficient||Very Low||Low||Low||Moderate||Moderate|
|Fully Sufficient||Very Low||Very Low||Low||Low||Moderate|
ICT Accessibility Policy Need/Engagement Ratings
The below descriptions of ratings facilitate interpretation of the ICT Accessibility Policy Need/Engagement Matrix (Table 1).
- Critical: Significant gap that should be addressed directly; could result in very significant issues for the organization; requires immediate attention.
- Very High: Significant gap that should be addressed soon; could result in significant issues for the organization; requires relatively immediate attention.
- High: Gap that should be addressed soon; could result in issues for the organization; requires attention within approximately 6 months.
- Moderate: Gap that should be addressed; could result in issues for the organization; requires regular monitoring or should ideally be addressed within the next fiscal year.
- Low: Low priority gap that could be addressed; likely will not impact the agency significantly if not addressed; yearly monitoring suggested.
- Very Low: Low priority gap or no gap exists; no impact to the agency is likely; suggested monitoring on an as needed basis.
ICT Accessibility Policy Need Prioritization
While agencies would ideally update all policies that have been determined to need updated ICT accessibility language, the reality is that agencies vary widely in terms of the resources needed to make these changes. For example, with Table 1 as point of reference, the twenty-four Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act Agencies likely have the funding and personnel to remediate all policies with a “Low” overall outcome or higher1. At the same time, many small and independent agencies contend with funding and personnel limitations, and may set a higher threshold (e.g., “Moderate” or “High”) to prioritize their policy remediation efforts, even if their policy portfolios are also comparatively smaller. Thus, each agency will have to make its own determination about which policies to prioritize for remediation based on its available resources, personnel, and its assessment of Section 508 compliance risks.