Accessibility Program Governance at a SaaS Company
A 500-person SaaS company has three product teams and an 18-month roadmap. Accessibility work is volunteer-based: one designer runs a monthly lunch-and-learn, and one engineer fixes issues when customers complain. The VP of engineering wants a “quick win” before the annual sales conference in six weeks and asks whether to buy an overlay widget, publish an unverified “WCAG 2.1 AA compliant” badge, or run a one-time audit. There is no accessibility owner, no budget line, no procurement policy, and no feedback channel. The company has 12 enterprise customers, two of which have asked for a VPAT. The design system has 60 components; 14 have known contrast failures. Customer support reports 9 accessibility complaints in the last year, mostly about keyboard traps in modals. Legal has not been involved. The CEO has signed a diversity pledge but not an accessibility commitment.
1. Evaluate the three “quick win” options and recommend what the company should do before the conference.
Read the worked answer
Model answer
The three options are not equivalent. An overlay widget does not fix the 14 contrast failures or keyboard traps in modals; it may interfere with assistive technology and can create a false sense of compliance. An unverified “WCAG 2.1 AA compliant” badge is worse: it is a public claim the company cannot support, and it invites legal and customer trust problems. A one-time audit can be useful for a baseline, but without remediation and ownership it becomes a report on a shelf.
Before the conference, the best quick win is a small, truthful package:
- Assign an interim accessibility owner with authority to stop releases for critical defects.
- Fix the modal keyboard traps and the highest-impact contrast failures in the design system, starting with the 14 known components.
- Publish an accessibility statement that names known gaps and a feedback contact-without claiming full conformance.
- Start an ACR/VPAT for the two enterprise customers, marking items “partially supports” where that is accurate.
- Create a lightweight intake channel for accessibility complaints.
This gives sales something defensible and gives the company real evidence. Do not buy the overlay or publish the badge. The conference deadline should not drive a false claim.
2. Propose a governance model with roles, budget, and a 12-month plan that fits three product teams.
Read the worked answer
Model answer
Governance should move accessibility from volunteer work into the product system:
- Executive sponsor: a VP or C-level owner with budget authority.
- Accessibility lead: 0.5–1.0 FTE depending on scope, responsible for standards, testing, and reporting.
- Team champions: one named person in each of the three product teams, with accessibility written into their role and performance goals.
- Steering group: lead, champions, design system owner, procurement, legal, support, and a disability employee resource group representative. Meet monthly.
- Budget line: fund testing, training, assistive technology for testers, remediation, and VPAT/ACR work. Do not rely on unpaid volunteers.
12-month plan:
- Months 1–2: baseline audit of critical flows, fix keyboard traps and contrast tokens, publish statement and feedback channel.
- Months 3–6: integrate accessibility acceptance criteria into design reviews, definition of done, and procurement; train all three teams.
- Months 6–9: remediate design system components; test with disabled users; produce ACR/VPATs.
- Months 9–12: audit a sample release, report metrics, and set annual targets.
Metrics: critical defects closed, conformance by flow, task success with disabled testers, complaint resolution, and percentage of procurements with accessibility requirements.
3. Two enterprise customers ask for a VPAT. What should the company provide, and what should it not claim?
Read the worked answer
Model answer
The company should provide a current Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) based on the VPAT 2.5 INT template, scoped to the product version the customers will use and the standard being reported-likely WCAG 2.1 AA, plus Section 508 if relevant. Each criterion should be rated honestly: supports, partially supports, does not support, or not applicable, with remarks explaining the evidence, known defects, and remediation date. Attach or reference the accessibility statement, testing methods, date of last review, and a feedback contact. If the product has not been fully tested, say so and mark the report as interim.
The company should not claim full WCAG conformance, “AA certified,” or “ADA compliant” without evidence. It should not present the overlay as proof, and it should not copy a generic VPAT from another product. The two customers are asking for risk information; a candid ACR with a remediation roadmap is more credible than an inflated claim. Legal should review the report before release, and the accessibility lead should update it after each major release. If a criterion is partially supported, explain the user impact and the workaround, not just the code status.