Example Digital Audit. Q Benchmark & Report

Transcription

1 Example Digital Audit Q Benchmark & Report

2 2017 Q3 / Example (Digital Capabilities) Top 10 Sites 5 Custom Content Assessment 6 Highlights 7 With the size of our site, Sitemorse accessibility testing makes what once was a daunting task into something far more manageable. The whole web team has benefited. Overall Results 9 Accessibility 11 Accessibility Results 13 Welcome to the Q Example Digital Capabilities report. 2 Michelle Hay mhay@sitemorse.com To compile the results we assessed the first 250 pages of each website, performing a range of tests, checks and measures (in total 22,539,829) across key categories of experience, optimisation and compliance, on the 9th Aug. 17 Websites of competitors and related industry bodies have been included, as requested for comparison. 3 3

3 Sitemorse covers 10 service categories Top 10 Sites Site 1 is the best performing site based on criteria relating to experience, optimisation and compliance this quarter. However, as each website has its own specific characteristics, overall results are also important to consider (page 9). With a website benchmark at your disposal, you can identify areas that require focus and then chart your success. Top Site: Site Site Site Site Site Site Site NEW +1 4 Site Site Site Site

4 Custom Content Assessment Highlights Custom content assessment is an invaluable tool in this respect, it allows organisations to assess whether they remain on brand and compliant with their own corporate and regulatory rules. Applying our automated technology can ease the burden of managing any change to these by ensuring publishing consistency across all corporate platforms; this saves considerable time and money spent on manual resources. becomes 9th AUG Assessment Date 4.49% of pages demonstrate actions Manually searching content and code consumes time and resources. Automation can prove 76% more accurate & deliver considerable savings. The table below is an example to show how Sitemorse can detail the frequency of usage and occurrences of given words/phases used across your digital presence. Link related Server responding Time out Images 63% 7% 4% 21% Over 22,500,800 tests, checks & measures were used on the top 250 pages of each site. Other 5% Number of Occurences of Words/ Phrases Term 1 Key Word 1 Banned Content 1 Change of Name 1 Term 2 Key Word 2 Banned Content 2 Change of Name 2 Site Site SPEED SEARCH Site 3 2 Site Site , Site Site Site 8 Site Site , Site , Site 12 9,660 Optimisation % 5.45% 20 Site 13 7 Site 14 3,126 Site 15 6,378 Sites Download Results Pages Without a Description Pages Without a Title Site ,368 3 Site Site 18 2,778 Site 19 Site , Site 21 3,124 Site 22 4,690 Site Site Site Site 26 Site 27 8 Site 28 3 Compliance Average Percentage of Sites Accessibility Pass Rate Q Q Q A AA A AA A AA % 6.08% 7.41% 56.99% 56.77% 61.38% By running automated independent analysis on key criteria that impact experience, optimisation and compliance, you can genuinely ensure that the best visitor experience is provided. With the use of Sitemorse, any improvements required will be highlighted and priorities sent to user-determined team members. It allows your organisation to make the biggest improvements on the most important pages, and it puts a framework in place that allows you to move forward in a positive way. 6 *Typical time to implement change & update organisation wide 7

5 The introduction of accessibility priorities is the first pragmatic step to achieving compliance. Overall Results The websites below have been ranked overall based on experience, optimisation and compliance. A report detailing your website s overall score can be obtained upon request from Sitemorse. Rank Organisation URL Score 1 0 Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Excluded Site 33 Excluded 8 9

6 Key priorities, covering: Experience, Optimisation & Compliance Time Accessibility For A More Pragmatic Approach The results on page 13 are listed in alphabetical order; the percentage indicates the pass total achieved. Our results show that very few websites achieve the most recognised global standard, WCAG 2.0 A / AA compliance. The WCAG complexity 2.0, of is the it standard impossible has made it both standard difficult to that adhere provides to and enforce. the basis for excuses? As most sites are not close to adherence, we consider the introduction of accessibility priorities to be the first pragmatic step. It allows the introduction of an initial level of In compliance, addition, the actual one that results improves for sites are online also showing experience a downward and reduces your compliance risk. trend. Just 1.5% of the 200 Government Sites in the Central Gov. INDEX ( are anywhere near WCAG 2 AA complaint, yet accessibility is claimed by many and is a government requirement. Before the release of WCAG 2.0 it appeared that a considerable number of organisation were at least heading towards WCAG 1.0 even though some considered it onerous and not all understood its importance. WCAG 1.0 was published and became a W3C recommendation in May It consisted of 14 guidelines which described general principles of accessible design. Each guideline covered a basic theme of web accessibility and was associated with one or more checkpoints which provide further detail about the guideline and techniques on how to apply the checkpoints. But, WCAG 2.0 is being considered over bearing and the sheer level of understanding and site work required to even start to embrace, let alone achieve it is seen as difficult to manage. As we are all aware, there are many benefits to an accessible site but, if the standard itself is the reason the need is negated, then the value is considerably diminished. The standard was superseded by WCAG 2.0 which was published as a W3C Recommendation in December It comprises of twelve guidelines which are separated into four principles - perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. Each of the guidelines are further divided into Success Criteria, which in theory are intended to be testable. The inception and launch of WCAG 2.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 / WCAG20/) has been difficult. Several organisations claim compliance and a desire to adopt the standard, however its complexity, time requirements and the level of training/support required have challenged many. In some instances, we have found that the matter is seemingly becoming less important and is regarded as an unachievable goal. To improve this situation, we have created a top 10 list of priorities which can be done to improve accessibility. The priorities list is based on the data we have collected after checking millions of pages, feedback from industry experts and our clients. We have considered each of the checkpoints of WCAG 2.0 to compile the priorities all of which we feel are understandable, manageable, measurable and achievable. By dealing with this list, the experience for all users regardless of their access needs will be improved. This isn t a perfect solution but by dealing with this list first, site owners can improve accessibility by 65-70% which is considerably better than no improvement at all. These techniques provide a starting point for getting to grips with the complete WCAG 2.0 standard

7 Accessibility Results Organisation Accessibility A Accessibility AA Site % -2.95% 96.26% -0.06% Site % -0.39% 99.60% 0.00% Site % +3.99% 97.58% % Site % +0.50% 74.04% -2.29% Site % 0.00% 12.38% -1.51% Site % +0.03% 25.61% -2.75% Time for a more pragmatic approach - one that is achievable by web teams and measurable across the organization and by regulators. Sitemorse is the clear leader here. Site % +1.98% 75.29% -5.86% Site % 0.00% 95.83% 0.00% Site % 0.00% 95.20% -0.40% Site % 0.00% 87.80% -0.29% Site % +3.86% 63.85% +7.24% Site % +0.06% 95.04% -1.14% Site % -0.27% 57.69% +8.74% Site % -0.62% 94.89% +5.53% Site % +0.13% 87.58% -0.08% Site % +1.10% 34.51% +1.72% Site % +1.10% 90.38% +0.13% Site % -0.43% 82.88% -0.96% Site % -1.01% 62.27% +1.28% Site % 0.00% % % Site % 0.00% 13.19% % Site % % 46.79% % Site % +0.54% 4.40% +1.60% Site % -0.51% 56.36% -2.86% Site % 0.00% 62.85% -3.30% Site % % 66.22% % Site % 0.00% 44.36% +0.73% Site % -1.96% 15.95% -1.37% Site % % 11.99% -3.66% Site % -1.02% 73.42% +0.34% Site % 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% Site % -0.21% 39.58% +4.84% Site 16 Excluded Excluded 12 13

8 Sitemorse is an ideal solution that everyone can use to check thousands of pages and site journey permutations in minutes, ensuring the best digital experience, while saving time and resources

9 Sitemorse (UK Sales) Ltd. 48 Charlotte Street London. W1T 2NS United Kingdom Disclaimer This document is offered as an overview and a starting point only it should not be used as a single, sole authoritative guide. You should not consider this as legal guidance. The services provided by Sitemorse (UK Sales) Ltd. is based on an audit of the available areas of a website at a point in time. Sections of the site that are not open to public access or are not being served (possibly be due to site errors or downtime) may not be covered by our reports. Where matters of legal compliance are concerned you should always take independent advice from appropriately qualified individuals or firms. Copyright This material is proprietary to Sitemorse (UK Sales) Ltd. and has been furnished on a confidential and restricted basis. Sitemorse (UK Sales) Ltd. hereby expressly reserves all rights, without waiver, election or other limitation to the full extent permitted by law, in and to this material and the information contained therein. Any reproduction, use or display or other disclosure or dissemination, by any method now known or later developed, of this material or the information contained herein, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Sitemorse (UK Sales) Ltd. is strictly prohibited Q3 / Example (Digital Capabilities)