Accessibility Baselines
Record performance against clearly defined accessibility criteria to understand the starting point.
Measure progress, not just compliance. Establish meaningful accessibility baselines across digital products and user journeys with structured, repeatable testing.
We combine expert accessibility evaluation, consistent measurement frameworks and, where appropriate, research with disabled and neurodivergent participants. Measuring technical accessibility alongside real task outcomes helps teams see what is improving, where barriers persist and where investment could make a difference.
Discuss benchmarkingWe establish a baseline for agreed products, features or journeys, then repeat evaluation to understand change. Measures are selected around your objectives, users and testing scope.
Record performance against clearly defined accessibility criteria to understand the starting point.
Measure task completion, independence, barriers, additional effort, workarounds and recovery.
Compare experience across screen readers, Voice Control, magnification, keyboard and other relevant interaction methods.
Repeat evaluation across releases and journeys to identify improvements, regressions and persistent barriers.
We translate complex digital journeys into structured scenarios and granular, testable assertions. Consistent criteria let teams compare outcomes across product versions, platforms, assistive technologies and testing cycles.
A measurement framework can record pass, fail and not-tested outcomes; task completion and independence; test environments; user impact; practical barriers; and supporting observations. Quantitative measures can support comparison, with context and user impact alongside results—not a single score that treats every barrier as equal.
Where useful, prioritisation or weighting can reflect agreed objectives and impact. This gives product teams and decision-makers transparent evidence without obscuring the detail behind a metric.
Quantitative accessibility metrics can reveal patterns, but do not always show how barriers affect the people encountering them. Where included in scope, moderated research with disabled and neurodivergent participants can explain workarounds and additional effort, challenge assumptions about task success and reveal barriers expert testing may not identify.
Expert-led manual accessibility testing and participant research are complementary. Lived-experience findings add context to measured outcomes and help teams assess whether changes improve real-world usability.
Repeatable accessibility progress tracking can compare releases, highlight recurring barriers, detect regressions, track remediation and reveal systemic component issues across key journeys. Findings can help teams decide where further accessibility investment is most useful.
Benchmarking is intended to support action, not simply produce performance statistics. Depending on your needs, evidence can inform improvement roadmaps, QA processes, reporting and accessibility maturity discussions, as well as ongoing product decisions.
Depending on scope, clients may receive an accessibility measurement framework, baseline assessment, structured scenarios and assertions, outcome summaries, comparative findings, assistive technology evidence, participant research findings, prioritised barriers and progress reports.
Recommendations, regression findings and validation results help product teams, accessibility leads and decision-makers understand progress and choose improvements. Dashboards or scorecards can be commissioned where appropriate; they are not assumed as a standard output.
Structured digital journey evaluation. Explore Journey Discovery.
Technical evaluation and prioritised fixes. Explore Audits.
Lived-experience usability research. Explore Inclusive Research.
Manual assistive technology evaluation. Explore Health Checks.
Ongoing specialist accessibility support. Explore Partnership.
Get in touch to discuss your digital service, testing needs, and priorities.