Accessibility Scorecards for Boards and Executives

Accessibility KPIs belong in board packets and executive dashboards alongside security, performance, and customer satisfaction metrics. Yet most organizations either don't report accessibility to leadership at all, or provide data so technical that executives can't act on it.

This gap is dangerous. When boards don't see accessibility metrics, they can't allocate resources appropriately, assess risk exposure, or hold the organization accountable for progress. Accessibility becomes invisible at the decision-making level where budgets, priorities, and strategic direction are set.

The solution is accessibility scorecards—concise, repeatable reports that translate accessibility status into business terms executives understand. This guide covers what metrics matter, how to design effective scorecards, and how to make accessibility an ongoing board agenda item.

Why Boards Need Accessibility Visibility

Accessibility as Risk

What should an executive accessibility report include? An executive accessibility report should include overall compliance posture, critical issue counts, trend direction, business impact metrics, and resource adequacy assessment—presented concisely with clear risk indicators.

Boards monitor risks. Accessibility is a risk with quantifiable dimensions:

Regulatory compliance: Section 508 (federal), European Accessibility Act (EU), and DOJ Title II (state/local government) all create enforceable requirements.

Reputational risk: Social media amplifies accessibility failures. Advocacy organizations publicize non-compliant organizations.

Boards routinely review security risk dashboards. Accessibility risk deserves equivalent attention.

Accessibility as Opportunity

Beyond risk mitigation, accessibility represents market opportunity:

Market size: According to CDC data, 27% of US adults have some form of disability. Globally, over 1 billion people.

Purchasing power: The Return on Disability report estimates the global disability market at $13 trillion in spending power.

Aging demographics: As populations age, accessibility features benefit growing customer segments.

Boards evaluating market expansion should understand whether current accessibility posture enables or prevents capturing these segments.

Accessibility as Brand

Corporate values increasingly influence customer and employee decisions:

DEI commitments: Accessibility is a dimension of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Inaccessible products undermine DEI messaging.

Brand perception: Organizations known for accessibility attract positive attention; those sued for accessibility get negative press.

Employee experience: Inaccessible internal tools affect ability to hire and retain employees with disabilities.

Boards considering brand positioning need visibility into accessibility reality versus aspiration.

Choosing the Right Executive Metrics

Coverage Metrics

Coverage metrics answer: "How much of our digital presence are we measuring?"

Percentage of pages scanned: What portion of your web properties are included in regular accessibility assessment? Coverage gaps mean unknown risk.

Percentage of applications assessed: Beyond marketing sites, are product applications, internal tools, and mobile apps being evaluated?

Scan frequency: Are properties scanned daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly? More frequent scanning catches regressions faster.

Manual audit coverage: What percentage of key user journeys have been evaluated through manual testing with assistive technologies?

Example presentation:

| Property        | Automated Coverage | Manual Audit | Last Audit |
|-----------------|--------------------|--------------|------------|
| Main Website    | 100% (daily)       | 80%          | Q3 2024    |
| Customer Portal | 100% (weekly)      | 60%          | Q2 2024    |
| Mobile App      | 75% (monthly)      | 40%          | Q1 2024    |

Issue Metrics

Issue metrics answer: "How many accessibility problems exist, and are we improving?"

Total open issues by severity: Critical, serious, moderate, minor—broken down to show where the most impactful problems are.

New issues vs. resolved issues: Are you fixing faster than you're creating? Net change indicates trajectory.

Mean time to remediate (MTTR): How long do issues stay open? By severity level.

Regression rate: What percentage of fixed issues recur? High regression indicates systemic problems.

Issues by category: What types of issues are most common? Contrast, labels, keyboard, images—patterns inform training and prevention.

Example presentation:

| Severity | Open | New (Quarter) | Resolved (Quarter) | Net Change | MTTR    |
|----------|------|---------------|--------------------|------------|---------|
| Critical | 3    | 5             | 8                  | -3         | 7 days  |
| Serious  | 27   | 32            | 41                 | -9         | 21 days |
| Moderate | 84   | 67            | 52                 | +15        | 45 days |

Business Impact Metrics

Business impact metrics answer: "How is accessibility affecting our business outcomes?"

Accessibility-related complaints: Customer support tickets or feedback mentioning accessibility issues.

Legal activity: Demand letters received, active litigation, settlements.

Conversion impact: When measured, the effect of accessibility improvements on conversion rates for key flows.

Support ticket deflection: Reduction in accessibility-related support contacts following improvements.

NPS/satisfaction changes: Customer satisfaction changes correlated with accessibility improvements.

Example presentation:

• Accessibility complaints: 12 this quarter (vs. 18 last quarter, -33%)
• Demand letters: 1 received, resolved via remediation
• Checkout accessibility improvement: +4% conversion for users with accessibility settings enabled

Designing a Simple, Repeatable Scorecard

Layout for Quarterly Board Packets

How do you create an accessibility scorecard for executives? Use a one-page format with traffic-light (RAG) status indicators, trend arrows, key metrics in large format, and a brief narrative summary. Focus on risk posture, progress direction, and resource adequacy.

Effective board scorecards fit on one page with clear visual hierarchy:

Header section:

• Report period
• Overall accessibility status (RAG indicator)
• Executive summary (2-3 sentences)

Metrics section (3-4 key metrics with trend indicators):

• Compliance score with trend arrow
• Critical issues count with trend
• Coverage percentage with target
• One business impact metric

Risk and compliance section:

• Legal/regulatory status
• Significant incidents
• Audit status

Resource section:

• Investment vs. plan
• Capacity assessment
• Resource requests (if any)

Traffic-Light (RAG) Indicators

RAG status provides instant comprehension:

Green: Accessibility posture meets defined standards. Trending positively. No significant incidents or legal exposure.

Amber: Some concerns requiring attention. May include compliance gaps, increasing issue volume, or elevated risk indicators.

Red: Significant accessibility problems requiring immediate attention. Active legal exposure, critical compliance gaps, or material incidents.

Define clear criteria for each status level so ratings are consistent and objective:

| Status | Criteria                                                            |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Green  | <5 critical issues, coverage >90%, improving trend, no active legal |
| Amber  | 5-15 critical issues, OR coverage 70-90%, OR stable/declining trend |
| Red    | >15 critical issues, OR coverage <70%, OR active litigation         |

Trend Indicators

Show direction, not just current state:

↑ Improving: Fewer issues, better scores, positive trajectory

→ Stable: Consistent with prior period

↓ Declining: More issues, worse scores, negative trajectory

Combine with RAG status for nuanced communication: "Green ↑" is excellent; "Green ↓" signals emerging concern despite current compliance; "Amber ↑" shows improving situation.

Narrative Summary

Numbers need context. Include a brief narrative (3-5 bullet points):

• Key accomplishments this period
• Significant concerns or risks
• Resource or investment implications
• Upcoming priorities

Example:

Data Sources and Frequency

Continuous Scans Feed Summary Reporting

Effective executive reporting requires underlying continuous data:

Automated scanning: Daily or weekly scans of all web properties provide current issue counts and trends.

Issue tracking data: Integration with Jira/Linear/etc. provides resolution metrics and MTTR calculations.

Complaint tracking: CRM or support system data on accessibility-related contacts.

Audit records: Manual audit results and dates.

Legal tracking: Documentation of demand letters and legal activity.

Reporting Cadence

Align accessibility reporting with existing governance rhythms:

Quarterly board reports: Comprehensive scorecard in board packet. Full metrics, trend analysis, narrative summary.

Monthly executive updates: Abbreviated metrics to leadership team. Key indicators and significant developments.

Weekly operational dashboards: Detailed metrics for accessibility program owners. Issue-level tracking and assignment.

Real-time alerts: Critical issues or incidents trigger immediate notification to relevant stakeholders.

Data Quality and Confidence

Address data quality in reporting:

Coverage limitations: If scanning doesn't cover all properties, note what's excluded and why.

Manual testing gaps: Automated scans catch 30-40% of issues. Acknowledge that reported numbers are incomplete.

Comparison validity: When comparing periods, ensure methodology consistency.

How TestParty Dashboards Map to Board Metrics

Export Views for Executive Briefings

TestParty provides data exports designed for executive reporting:

Summary dashboards: High-level metrics showing overall compliance posture, issue distributions, and trends.

Export formats: PDF and data exports suitable for board packet inclusion.

Custom date ranges: Generate reports for specific quarterly or annual periods.

Property grouping: Aggregate metrics by business unit, brand, or platform for organizational alignment.

Frameworks for Executive Briefings

TestParty's reporting framework maps to scorecard requirements:

Compliance percentage: Overall WCAG conformance score provides the top-line metric.

Issue breakdown: Severity distribution (critical/serious/moderate/minor) directly supports scorecard metrics.

Trend data: Historical tracking enables period-over-period comparison.

Coverage metrics: Scan coverage and frequency data documents monitoring extent.

Building Board-Ready Exports

Using TestParty data for board scorecards:

1. Set reporting period: Define the quarter or period for the report
2. Generate summary data: Export compliance scores, issue counts, and trends
3. Add business context: Supplement with complaint data, legal activity, and qualitative notes
4. Format for audience: Transfer to your board packet template with appropriate visualizations
5. Include narrative: Write executive summary contextualizing the numbers

Getting Accessibility on the Board Agenda

Building the Case

If accessibility isn't currently a board topic, build the case:

Frame as risk: Board fiduciary duty includes risk oversight. Accessibility represents legal, regulatory, and reputational risk requiring board visibility.

Quantify exposure: Research accessibility litigation in your industry. Estimate potential settlement costs, legal fees, and remediation expenses.

Benchmark competition: If competitors are more or less accessible, that's strategically relevant.

Connect to existing priorities: Link accessibility to existing board concerns—DEI commitments, digital transformation, customer experience, regulatory compliance.

Starting Small

Begin with inclusion in existing reports rather than separate agenda items:

Risk committee reports: Include accessibility in regular risk reporting.

Audit committee updates: Cover accessibility in compliance audit discussions.

Digital/technology updates: Incorporate accessibility metrics in technology reports.

Customer experience metrics: Add accessibility indicators to CX dashboards.

Once visibility exists, expand to dedicated agenda items as appropriate.

Maintaining Ongoing Attention

Avoid accessibility becoming a one-time discussion:

Regular cadence: Quarterly reporting creates expectation of ongoing updates.

Progress tracking: Show improvement over time to demonstrate return on investment.

Incident reporting: Significant accessibility incidents should reach the board.

Strategic integration: Connect accessibility investments to strategic initiatives.

Frequently Asked Questions

What accessibility metrics do boards actually care about?

Boards care about risk exposure (legal/regulatory), business impact (complaints, revenue effects), compliance status (are we meeting requirements), trend direction (improving or declining), and resource adequacy (do we have what we need). Technical metrics like WCAG success criteria counts matter less than these business-framed indicators.

How often should we report accessibility to the board?

Quarterly reporting aligns with typical board cadences and provides sufficient time to show meaningful change. Monthly reporting may be appropriate during active remediation programs or elevated risk periods. Annual-only reporting is insufficient for proper governance oversight.

Who should own accessibility board reporting?

Accessibility board reporting typically rolls up through risk/compliance functions or technology leadership, depending on organizational structure. The accessibility program owner provides data and analysis; the executive sponsor presents to the board. Ensure the presenter can answer board questions about risk, investment, and strategy.

What if our accessibility data shows poor results?

Honest reporting of poor results is essential—boards can't govern what they can't see. Present poor results with context: root causes, remediation plans, resource needs, and expected improvement timeline. Boards expect problems to surface; they expect management to have plans to address them.

How do we benchmark accessibility against competitors?

Conduct accessibility scans of competitor properties using automated tools. Compare issue counts and types. Note that automated scans reveal only a portion of accessibility issues, so benchmarks are indicative rather than comprehensive. TestParty can scan competitor public properties to support benchmarking.

Conclusion – Make Accessibility an Ongoing Board Priority

Accessibility scorecards transform accessibility from technical obscurity to board-level visibility. When boards see accessibility metrics alongside other governance indicators, they can allocate resources appropriately, hold the organization accountable, and understand accessibility's role in risk management and market opportunity.

Effective accessibility scorecards:

• Use the right metrics: Coverage, issue counts, trends, and business impact—not technical WCAG details
• Present clearly: One-page format with RAG indicators, trend arrows, and brief narrative
• Report consistently: Quarterly cadence with defined methodology for trend validity
• Connect to business: Frame accessibility in terms of risk, opportunity, and strategic priorities
• Enable action: Include resource adequacy assessment and investment recommendations

Accessibility belongs in board governance. The organizations that win at accessibility are those where leadership sees, understands, and acts on accessibility data.

Want a board-ready accessibility scorecard built from your own data? Start by scanning your key properties with TestParty and see the metrics that matter.

Related Articles:

• 13 Essential WCAG Compliance Statistics Reshaping Web Accessibility Standards
• Accessibility as Part of Your Security and Risk Program