Skip to main content

Annual Self-Review

At Michigan State University, we are committed to providing accessible experiences for persons with disabilities. To continue in this commitment, since 2016 the university has requested that each major administrative unit (MAU) submits annual self-reviews to measure improvements in the accessibility of programs, services, and activities within their digital accessibility program. 

In support of MSU’s commitment to digital accessibility and progressing the work of colleges/units under their web accessibility Five-Year Plans, each Major Administrative Unit (MAU) is required to submit an Annual Self-Review.

The Fourth Annual Self-Review annoucement is available via memo on webaccess

Annual Self-Reviews allow MSU to assess our institutional progress and offer an opportunity for MAUs to report changes in resource commitments, priorities, or approach over the course of the year. If your plans or priorities have changed significantly, you should indicate them in your Annual Self-Review. 

Consultation and support for the Five-Year Plans and Annual Self-Reviews is provided by MSU Information Technology. Contact for questions, or to setup a consultation.

Action Needed 

By June 30, 2020, please review/update the Web accessibility Policy Liaisons that represent your MAU and submit your MAU-level Year Four Digital Accessibility Self-Review. 

Update Liaison Representatives

Web Accessibility Policy Liaisons are the primary accessibility representatives for each college and department, and we recommend that you include multiple representatives - Academic, Communications, Web Developer/IT, and Administrative - to provide a holistic perspective of the digital accessibility progress happening in your college or department. 

Each MAU should identify a Lead Liaison to indicate a single point of contact for their MAU. 

To update your Liaison representatives, please email us at, and for instructions and guidance on submitting your annual self-review, visit webaccess. 

Submit your Fourth Annual Digital Accessibility Self-Review

  1. Download a copy of the Year Four Digital Accessibility Compliance Self-Review questions to review them in advance.
  2. Open the Self-Review form, and complete it by June 30, 2020

Digital Accessibility Benchmarks and Targets 

Based on feedback provided by the Web Accessibility Policy Liaisons during retrospectives in early 2019, these benchmarks and targets are intended to provide clarity to guide MAU reporting efforts. 

Core Benchmark Areas 

In effort to track digital accessibility progress, and to create better digital experiences across the institution, the annual Self-Review form is structured to report updates in five core digital accessibility benchmark areas: 

  • Culture: MSU recognizes the rights of individuals with disabilities, and is committed to providing equal access to the University mission. 
  • Training: MSU is committed to making training available on creating and providing accessible digital content and services with reasonable accommodation in mind. These resources are designed to provide employees with tools and new skills to make their content more accessible. 
  • Web: MSU seeks to provide accessible digital experiences. Websites are oftentimes the way that individuals gain access to University programs, services, and activities. 
  • Courses: MSU seeks to proactively implement universally designed, accessible digital experiences (such as captioned videos), and to understand their obligations related to the Disability and Reasonable Accommodation policy.
  • Procurement: Those at MSU involved in purchasing Electronic Information Technology (EIT) for the university should consider the accessibility of such products or services. Units should understand the impact that EIT purchasing and decision-making has on individuals with disabilities in and outside the university and should partner with University Services when purchasing digital content when possible. More information is available on the University Services website.

Targets for Progress 

Progress in each digital accessibility benchmark area is rated in one of three categories: “Exceptional,” “Meets Expectations,” or “Needs Improvement.”  

These rubrics are intended to help measure and assess progress, gain insight around about where you are on-track, and improve future allocations.  

The five, core digital accessibility benchmark areas are rated using the following rubrics:   

Rubric for self-reviews that are exceptional: 

  • The values of access and inclusion are aligned with MAU mission/vison with clear steps to support this claim. 
  • A clear prioritization methodology is stated and established, with clear steps to show how progress is measured. Clear and ongoing reporting.
  • Future intent and direction outlined, with internal resources to support effort from multiple roles and perspectives (Administrative, Communicator, Academic, Web developer/IT).  
  • Understands the impacts of purchasing on individuals with disabilities, and partners with University Services when purchasing digital content when possible.
  • Proactively reviews products for accessibility and provides EEAAPs (Equally Effective Alternate Access Plan) as needed.   
  • Reviews and validates top priority digital experiences for accessibility on a regular cadence, at least every 90 days using a standard like the MSU Evaluation Protocol 

Rubric for self-reviews that meet expectations 

  • The values of access and inclusion are somewhat aligned with MAU mission/vision, but may not be completely clear.  
  • Using prioritization to direct resources, but methodology for prioritization may not be documented or completely clear. Making attempts to show how progress is measured and/or some reporting is happening. 
  • Future intent is becoming clear, and/or internal resources are allocated to support digital accessibility program efforts. 
  • Understands the impacts of purchasing on individuals with disabilities, and partners with University Services when purchasing digital content when possible.  
  • Reviews top priority digital experiences for accessibility by request, and/or attempts to complete reviews on a regular cadence. Making attempts to use standard review and validation processes. 

Rubric for self-reviews that need improvement 

  • No MAU statement on accessibility related to mission/vision. 
  • No prioritization method defined. Little or no progress is being measured. Progress is not being reported. 
  • Future intent is unclear.  
  • MAU is not providing enough internal resources to support accessibility effort.  
  • Does not typically consider the impacts of electronic and information technology purchasing and decision-making on individuals with disabilities. 
  • Does not typically review digital experiences to ensure that they are accessible.