1. Spurring the Elephant: Implementing a Digital Accessibility Training Program in the Enterprise
Beth Crutchfield
Terri Fellers

2. Agenda
Introduction
Key Concepts
Training Plan
Content Development
Delivery

3. Introduction

4. Eliminate Discrimination Social Responsibility
Business Drivers
Why do we care?
Digital accessibility programs are driven by a mixture of the following factors:
Business Drivers
Manage Legal Risk
Eliminate Discrimination
Conform to Laws
Access Markets
Social Responsibility

5. Overarching Model
Digital Accessibility Maturity Model (DAMM)
High level areas of activity or competence needed for an effective digital accessibility program.
Program maturity is measured along ten key dimensions:
Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance
Communications
Policy and Standards
Legal and Regulatory
Fiscal Management
Development Lifecycle
Testing and Validation
Support and Documentation
Procurement
Training
Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance - Defines the degree of maturity associated with accessibility program Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance in the organization. The implementation of a well-defined GRC program defines the extent to which accessibility implementations are actively evaluated, monitored, and validated in the component lifecycle.
Communications - Encompasses all public facing communication activities relating to the digital accessibility program. The communications dimension broadly measures organizational maturity in communicating its digital accessibility program activities. It explicitly includes ensuring that there are also clear and well tended channels for receiving feedback on digital accessibility issues. This dimension includes public statements of compliance and public representations of the digital accessibility program. The Policy and Process aspects for this dimension include addressing questions like: Should public facing marketing assets be accessible? Should public facing communications be accessible? The Communications dimension does not measure the level of conformance of public marketing channels with the digital accessibility policy.
Policy and Standards - The extent to which an organization has policies and technical standards governing digital accessibility. This dimension includes an overarching digital accessibility policy, specific policies in use throughout the development and support lifecycle, and detailed technical standards for accessibility. Included in the policy is a determination of whether or not the organization will implement accessibility on a go-forward basis, or create remediation or obsolescence plans for inaccessible legacy systems.
Regulatory - Encompasses all non-HR filings, remediation plans, or other documentation required by statute, regulation, or is part of a settlement agreement, consent decree, or other legal proceeding.
Fiscal Management – Defines the core maturity an organization has in analyzing and implementing accessibility investments. This includes a clearly defined model for understanding the Return on Investment (RoI) associated with accessibility. Growth in this dimension ensures the organization understands and has quantified digital accessibility business drivers.
Development Lifecycle - The extent to which accessibility is included and defined in the development lifecycle activities of the organization.
Testing and Validation – The degree of maturity associated with accessibility testing process and approaches. This encompasses an evolution from a chaotic testing environment to active, structured testing to a continuously updated testing approach that includes assistive technology and integrated testing by users with disabilities.
Support and Documentation - The degree of maturity with which an organization providers accessible support services and documentation. This includes ensuring that support systems meet the communication needs of people with disabilities and that documentation is provided in an accessible or alternative format.
Procurement - Specifies the degree of maturity associated with including digital accessibility considerations in the procurement and vendor management activities of an organization, including purchases made by credit card.
Training – Training defines the level of maturity the organization has in providing all impacted roles in the development lifecycle appropriate and effective training. It is strongly linked to the Policy and Standards and Development / Lifecycle dimensions as it supports their effective organizational implementation.

6. Phase 1: Training Plan

7. Training Plan Goals
Have the knowledge in place to ensure sites and applications are compliant with accessibility policy
The ability to maintain that knowledge over time and staffing changes
The ability to certify knowledge transfer to key roles

8. Core Development Roles
Target Roles
Core Development Roles
Designers
Developers
Quality Assurance
Project and Product Managers
Documentation Roles
Technical Writers
Communications and Marketing
Procurement
Contract Specialists
Vendors
Other Roles
Customer Service Representatives
Human Resources

9. Sample Curricula and Courses
Accessibility Awareness
Accessibility Concepts
Section 508, WCAG, ADA, CVAA, AODA
Accessibility Testing and Evaluation
Audit Methodology, Testing Tools
Document Accessibility
Acrobat, InDesign, MS Office
Mobile Accessibility
Overview, iOS for Testers, iOS for Developers
Web Accessibility
Overview, Basics and Advanced
Support
Handling Accessibility Issues

10. Example Training Matrix
Course
Curriculum
Roles
Accessibility Concepts
Accessibility Awareness
All employees
Section 508 / WCAG / ADA / CVAA Overview
Web Accessibility Basics
Web Accessibility
Managers, Developers, Designers, Testers
Web Accessibility Advanced
Developers, Designers, Testers
Adobe Acrobat Accessibility
Document Accessibility
Developers, Authors, Marketing
Adobe InDesign Accessibility
Designers, Authors
Microsoft Office Accessibility
Testing Tools Overview
Testing and Evaluation
Introduction to JAWS
Developers, Testers
Handling Accessibility Issues
Support
CSRs

11. Entering a new job position Introduction of accessibility errors
Training Rollout Plan
Time based implementation of the training matrix
When do specific roles need to complete specific training?
What is the refresh period for training?
What triggers training needs to occur?
What is the refresh period for training – typically annually
What triggers training needs to occur
Entering a new job position
Introduction of accessibility errors

12. Basic and Expert Tracks
Training internal accessibility experts is expensive
Easy fix - split up the tracks
Procedurally tier out accessibility development issues
Front line employees
Internal experts
External experts
Training internal accessibility experts is expensive
480 hour period of time for individuals with a relevant base on knowledge to gain a level of familiarly with accessibility best practices required to test effectively
This uses Web technology – browser native content - as a baseline - other platforms take more or less time than that
Knowledge goes out of date quickly
Easy fix split up the tracks
Train most people on basic courses
Train a few (willing) team members in a more advanced fashion
Procedurally tier out accessibility requests
Front line employees handle most issues, escalate to internal experts
Internal experts resolve most secondary issues, escalated to external experts
External experts handle final resolution
Basic Track Notes
Training that covered all possible accessibility issues for all possible roles would be extensive in nature – on the order of five days of classroom time for most of the targeted roles in addition to pre-classroom work and follow-up study.
Accessibility issues, however, tend to follow a power law distribution where a small number of issue types account for the vast majority of issues in practice. Given that, organizations often focus courses on a minimal, limited set of requirements of common issues for targeted, in-depth training.
Basic track courses cover a handful of high priority issues that are known to be relevant to each role rather than the full set of issues that could be relevant to each role.
Top ten issues
Easily testable items
Allows for training to occur in half or full day blocks rather than week long sessions.
Team members are trained on key issues that are likely to come up and be made aware of areas where they should request additional accessibility input and review from accessibility experts.
Expert Track Notes
Internal expects developed by working in situ with external experts on initial projects
Internal experts learn on the job and expand knowledge organically versus having a long dedicated training period.

13. Basic and Expert Tracks
The right class for the right person
Attendance roles that best match the course content
Tracks are broken up into specific areas so that attendees get the most out of the time
Courses should be attended by those whose roles best match the course content
For example, placing a policy expert in a class about development lends itself to confusion and makes content concentration difficult
Tracks are broken up into specific areas so that attendees get the most out of the time
Important to drive the point home about utilizing the given time properly. Making sure the right person is attending the class is the most important step. This slide segways well into the next slide

14. Assistive Technology Training
Do not recommend organizations train Developers or QA to perform functional or user acceptance testing with AT
Focus on normative testing against best practices
Supplement with functional testing by individuals with disabilities that use the AT on a daily basis
Sighted users testing with AT can result in radically inaccurate results
Focus is on having these roles perform normative testing against best practices.
Best practice validation - straightforward to train, uncovers 98% of relevant issues
Testing is supplemented by functional testing by individuals with disabilities that use the assistive technology day in and day out.
Why?
Best practice validation is straightforward to train on and provides significant accessibility testing coverage – generally uncovering 98% of the relevant issues.
Functional testing requires testing that determines the overall usability of the system in assistive technology.
In practice users of assistive technology
use it as the sole means of interacting with their computer and
do not have access to sensory information available to other users.
When sighted users with limited training are asked to determine if an application “works” for such a screen reader user it results in radically inaccurate testing results.
False negatives – failures that are flagged that can effectively be worked around in assistive technology
False positives – items that are passed that should be flagged as failure.

15. Provide coaching support for trainees
Recurring, scheduled sessions
Help Desk support
Allows trainees to bring issues to an expert
Keeps the issue fresh in individuals minds
Allows for tracking what issues are unclear in training

16. Please(!), not just PowerPoint Slides
PowerPoint driven training is boring
Video training is better
2-3 minute videos
Simulation training is best
Practical reality is a mix of these methodologies

17. Phase 2: Content Development

18. Course Development Overview
Create a series of courses implementing the training matrix
Defining the content
Defining the knowledge checks
Defining a certification process

19. Course Development Methodology
Kickoff
Design Document
Delivery Approach
Technical Specifications
Goals
Objectives
Outlines
Specific Best Practices
Storyboard
Introduction
Goals and Objectives
Modules
Exercises
Assessments
Demonstrations
Review Cycles
Development
Deploy

20. Grouped by media types (Images, Data Tables, Forms) Content:
Module Content
Grouped by media types (Images, Data Tables, Forms)
Content:
Description of relevant accessibility issues
Compliant and non-compliant examples
How to fix
How to unit test
Speaker notes or narration transcript

21. In large organizations seat time is the dominant cost
Build vs. Buy
Building courses
Cheap if we don’t account for time
Custom by definition
Takes a lot of time
Buying courses
Expensive if we don’t account for time
Not custom by default
Quick
Common Practice
License base courses
Customize a subset
The more frequently a course is taken, the more critical it is to customize it
In large organizations seat time is the dominant cost
Often these courses use stock content as a base and are customized and extended to conform to the target set of courses and knowledge requirements defined in phase one.

22. Phase 3: Delivery

23. On-site Instructor-Led Training Web-based Instructor-Led Training
Delivery Options
On-site Instructor-Led Training
Classic classroom based training
Web-based Instructor-Led Training
Remote training
Online Self-Paced Training
Deploy courses via SaaS or to the organization’s learning management system

24. On-site Instructor-Led Training
Organizations typically see highest satisfaction ratings and knowledge retention with this method of delivery
More engagement from students
However, most expensive option
Experience shows more engagement from classroom based instruction
Anyone can make their way through a self paced course
Maximum benefit occurs when a person can raise their hand and ask a question to a live person
Questions spark conversation answering even more questions

25. Advanced courses available online in a self-paced fashion
Mixed Delivery Models
Basic courses often benefit from live demonstrations and examples of AT
Allows team members to experience accessibility challenges firsthand
Communicating the human impact
Advanced courses available online in a self-paced fashion
Provides the benefits of classroom and online training
Almost always the best when in the real world

26. Accessibility Summits
A Shotgun approach to kicking off a program
Methodology:
Offsite assessment work
Onsite, hands-on intensive, custom training
Onsite consulting work with relevant groups
Offsite, ongoing coaching support for teams
Builds critical mass to get a program moving

27. Questions?

28. Thank You Contact Us Beth Crutchfield Terri Fellers Follow Us
VP of Policy and Program Services
Terri Fellers
Accessibility Team Lead
Follow Us
@SSBBARTGroup
linkedin.com/company/ SSB-BART-Group
facebook.com/ SSBBARTGroup
SSBBARTGroup.com/blog

29. About SSB BART Group Unmatched Experience Focus on Accessibility
Solutions That Manage Risk
Real-World Strategy
Organizational Strength and Continuity
Dynamic, Forward-Thinking Intelligence
Fourteen hundred organizations (1445)
Fifteen hundred individual accessibility best practices (1595)
Twenty-two core technology platforms (22)
Fifty-five thousand audits (55,930)
One hundred fifty million accessibility violations (152,351,725)
Three hundred sixty-six thousand human validated accessibility violations (366,096)
The SSB Advantage
Founded in 1997 by engineers with disabilities, SSB BART Group (SSB) has been in the accessibility business since before the establishment of Section 508 and the WCAG, longer than most firms providing accessibility compliance services. SSB delivers comprehensive, scalable solutions by providing software, auditing, training, monitoring, and process and policy development, and by addressing the full scope of compliance needs for the world’s largest and most dynamic firms.
Unmatched Experience
For more than two decades, SSB has occupied the dominant position in the market, assisting enterprise-class organizations focused on achieving accessibility compliance across large development environments. SSB actively works with major industry development platform and assistive technology vendors, regulatory agencies and public sector organizations to consistently update understanding of the proper level of accessibility for clients. Additionally, SSB partners with numerous industry and advocacy groups focused on promoting web accessibility to IT systems, including G3ict, W3C WCAG, the National Federation of the Blind and the US Access Board.
Over the years, SSB has received numerous industry accolades for breadth and depth of expertise, strategic focus and superior customer service. It is the only organization of its kind that is an advisory partner to the U.S. Access Board, FCC, World Wide Web Consortium and other regulatory and standards-developing organizations.
SSB brings unparalleled industry knowledge to serve thousands of the world’s most dynamic organizations across industries that include banking, insurance, healthcare, software, telecommunications, cable, retail, entertainment, government and education. For every engagement, SSB provides a dedicated team of account managers who are experts in accessibility compliance initiatives in the context of specific industries and who understand the relevant requirements of each client’s niche. SSB’s methodology is tailored to a client’s unique challenges, and includes a prioritization model and risk-weighted plan for the most effective and efficient way to meet compliance goals. Every initiative that a client implements is backed by a significant and extensive trail of documentation and a comprehensive and cogent description of why a particular implementation path was followed.
Focus on Accessibility
SSB’s sole focus is on providing IT accessibility solutions. Other firms offer a variety of products and services, including general usability, privacy, security, brand compliance and search engine optimization. This leaves customers with short term, “quick fix” solutions that are poorly managed and executed. Given the complexity of IT accessibility and the difficulty of implementing initiatives, SSB’s strategic focus is the best match for organizations serious about achieving accessibility properly, rapidly and cost effectively.
SSB’s strategic focus is also evident in the firm’s dedication to ensuring its solutions not only meet regulatory standards, but also that they really work for the people intended to benefit from them. Nearly half of SSB’s client services team members are individuals with disabilities and are uniquely qualified to identify and develop working solutions to accessibility challenges. SSB’s creative, knowledgeable and dynamic professionals bring an unrivaled level of insight, passion and dedication to every assignment, ensuring that clients achieve compliance with both the technical and functional requirements of leading accessibility laws, standards and guidelines.
Solutions That Manage Risk
Many organizations seeking to make systems accessible do so to reduce or eliminate legal liability. SSB provides solutions that address the actual requirements of the law rather than those that are simply easy to test. In reality, automated testing tools can only validate a quarter of accessibility standards – a small fraction of all needed requirements. For this reason, any validation process that relies solely on automated testing cannot make a legitimate claim of compliance. SSB utilizes automatic testing to address the set of provisions that can readily be validated using this method, and carefully plans for the remaining requirements using the most economical approach for each item needing validation. This ensures that a complete, rather than a partial, solution is implemented. Ongoing monitoring is then used to ensure long-term compliance.
SSB’s approach was born out of being the first company to release a commercial accessibility validation tool, InFocus, more than a decade ago. As part of that process, the firm became acquainted with the capabilities and limitations of accessibility testing software. As a result, SSB has spent the last ten years investing in and developing the Accessibility Management Platform (AMP). AMP is focused on solving the broader problem that customers actually face, which is how to manage all aspects of accessibility — auditing, training and standards management — over the course of many years and development cycles.
Real-World Strategy
SSB’s organizational focus is implementing accessibility in the real world. Other accessibility companies provide diagnostic information to clients with caveats such as "this doesn’t work in JAWS." While helpful in identifying a problem, this provides no guidance on how to actually resolve the issue. In contrast, for all challenges identified, SSB provides a specific, actionable plan that can readily be monitored and implemented down to the most detailed step, such as changing a piece of code on a specific line. This includes providing code-level implementation and unit test guidance for all best practices in AMP and all content delivered in audits.
SSB’s implementation focus is the result of extensive development experience in the context of enterprise-class IT systems. Competing companies tend to specialize in web accessibility testing, but have limited experience in the development of enterprise-class websites, web-based applications and software. While it is important for accessibility firms to understand the inner-workings of JAWS, the world’s leading screen reader, far more benefit is provided if the customer is helped to understand how to modify an AJAX application so that it works properly in JAWS. This is SSB’s focus as an organization: making systems compliant in the real world.
In evaluating accessibility firms, many organizations have found that some consultants operate in a rigid environment where nothing but fully compliant information technology is acceptable. In reality, trade-offs are often required, and dollars go to projects that provide the best return for an investment. In order to make systems compliant in the real world, these constraints must be considered and evaluated as part of the overall plan. At SSB, the goal is to be good stewards of the budgets of clients — ensuring that every dollar spent on accessibility has the most impact and makes the most sense for the organization as a whole.
Organizational Strength and Continuity: The Depth and Stability to Serve
SSB has the largest full time, dedicated staff of any company of its kind. The vast majority of accessibility firms use contractors who are hired as needed on a per-project basis. This has a significant, negative impact on the quality of work delivered, as well as the consistency and accuracy of testing results. At SSB, the team members who clients speak with initially to discuss an accessibility compliance plan are the same people who will be there every step of the way to ensure both short- and long-term success. This guarantees a consistent set of recommendations from a dedicated team that knows a client organization well, and that understands how accessibility solutions should be adapted to a particular business environment.
SSB’s size also ensures the ability to adequately staff and handle a substantial volume of business from large customers. Smaller companies or sole consultants often cannot manage the amount of work that comes from enterprise-class firms, whether private IT manufacturers, financial institutions or large government organizations. SSB has both the organizational depth and the infrastructure to handle any accessibility compliance assignment, regardless of size and complexity.
Dynamic, Forward-Thinking Intelligence
As the largest accessibility consulting firm in the world, SSB uses AMP to deliver all accessibility services every single day. This gives SSB the ability to make and experience improvements to AMP that are born through constant feedback from staff, who use the product continuously on behalf of SSB’s client base, some of the world’s largest and most progressive organizations. As new standards are deployed, new requirements identified, new implementation techniques developed and issues resolved in real time, these experiences and lessons are immediately provided in AMP for the benefit of all users. For example, SSB provided updates for WCAG 2.0 in AMP within 48 hours of the release of the standards.
SSB leverages its status as the only firm to provide full support for all FCC regulations and more than 20 other leading accessibility standards to ensure that customers have the advantage of instant, ongoing updates to all best practices, rule sets, tests and training content. This is in sharp contrast to competing firms, where compliance data is hard-coded and updates occur infrequently, at best.