Clients kept asking me how they should prioritize issues. Some asked if we could order their audit report in the order in which they should make the fixes.
Going into the Excel spreadsheet and doing this was a pain point for me and clearly issue prioritization was something clients wanted so we built Accessibility Tracker.
Trivia Night: Accessibility Tracker actually started out as Prioritizer.
Anyway, one of the first features we built into Accessibility Tracker was two prioritization formulas that you could sort your audit report with: User Impact and Risk Factor.
With user impact, I spent hours coming up with a weighted scoring system that I felt best weighted the issues with the most overall impact to users.
Risk Factor was easier because I took the lawsuit data I had already compiled when creating the ADA Compliance Course and applied that to create a score for each issue (which, of course, is connected to a WCAG success criterion).
This instantly provides strong value to anyone working through an accessibility audit report because now each issue can be ordered and worked on using the formula that matches your organization’s preference.
Let’s get into the details.
| Feature | What It Means for You |
|---|---|
| Risk Factor Formula | Prioritizes issues based on lawsuit data from hundreds of ADA website complaints, helping you address the most legally pressing issues first |
| User Impact Formula | Uses a weighted scoring system to identify issues creating the most significant barriers for users with disabilities |
| Custom Priority | Set your own high, medium, or low priority designations for specific issues based on your organization’s needs |
| Instant Sorting | Sort hundreds of issues in seconds rather than spending hours on manual prioritization |
| Precise Scoring | Move beyond vague categories like “critical” or “severe” to exact numerical scores for each issue |
The Traditional Approach
Digital accessibility companies have traditionally categorized issues with broad severity labels: critical, severe, important, urgent. These classifications lack precision. When you see ten issues marked as “critical,” which one do you fix first? The traditional approach leaves you guessing.
These vague categorizations create several problems:
- No clear starting point when multiple issues share the same severity level
- Difficulty allocating resources efficiently across your team
- Uncertainty about which fixes will have the most immediate impact
- Challenges in communicating progress to stakeholders
Accessibility Tracker replaces this imprecise system with exact scoring for every issue in your audit report.
Risk Factor Formula: Data from Real Lawsuits
The risk factor formula draws from complaints filed in court by the most active plaintiffs’ law firms. We analyzed hundreds of website accessibility complaints to identify which WCAG issues appear most frequently in litigation.
Issues that show up most often in lawsuits receive the highest scores. For example, missing alternative text for images (WCAG 1.1.1) consistently appears in complaints and therefore receives a score of 100. Keyboard navigability issues (WCAG 2.1.1) and form field labeling problems (WCAG 3.3.2) also score high based on their frequency in litigation.
This data-driven approach means you’re not relying on assumptions about legal risk. You’re working from actual patterns observed in real lawsuits. When you sort by risk factor in Accessibility Tracker, the issues most likely to trigger litigation appear at the top of your list.
User Impact Formula: Weighted Scoring System
The user impact formula evaluates how accessibility issues affect real users through a weighted scoring system based on five key factors:
- Access Blocking Severity (35 points): Measures how completely the issue prevents users from accessing content
- Workaround Feasibility (25 points): Evaluates how easily users can find alternative ways to access content when an issue exists
- User Population Size (15 points): Considers how many users are potentially affected by the issue
- Frequency Likelihood Factor (15 points): Evaluates how commonly the issue occurs on typical websites
- Contextual Criticality (10 points): Assesses how important the affected functionality is to completing core tasks
Each WCAG success criterion receives a score from 0 to 100 based on this weighted system. We then manually adjusted certain scores based on decades of accessibility experience to ensure accuracy.
When you sort by user impact, issues that completely block access with no workarounds appear first. Your team addresses the most significant barriers before moving to issues with less severe impact.
Custom Priority Options
Sometimes your organization has specific issues that need immediate attention regardless of their risk or impact scores. Accessibility Tracker lets you set custom priorities for any issue as high, medium, or low.
This flexibility proves valuable in several scenarios:
- A key stakeholder requests specific fixes
- Your legal team identifies particular concerns
- Business requirements dictate certain priorities
- You want to batch similar issues together for efficiency
Custom priorities work alongside the formula-based scoring, giving you complete control over your remediation workflow.
Practical Implementation in Accessibility Tracker
Once you upload your audit report to Accessibility Tracker, prioritization takes seconds. The platform automatically calculates risk factor and user impact scores for every issue based on the WCAG success criterion.
Here’s the typical workflow:
- Upload your accessibility audit spreadsheet
- View all issues in the project dashboard
- Click the risk factor or impact column header to sort
- Assign high-priority issues to team members
- Track progress as issues move from not started to validated
Your team can filter to see only high-risk issues or focus on high-impact problems. Developers can batch similar issues together for efficient fixing. Project managers get clear visibility into which issues matter most.
Choosing Your Prioritization Strategy
Your prioritization approach depends on your primary accessibility objective:
If legal compliance drives your project, start with the risk factor formula. Address issues that appear most frequently in lawsuits first. This approach reduces your exposure to litigation while you work through the complete audit.
If user experience is paramount, use the user impact formula. Fix issues that create the most significant barriers first. This ensures users can access core functionality even while remediation continues.
Many organizations use both formulas at different project stages. They might address high-risk issues first to reduce legal exposure, then switch to user impact scoring for the remaining fixes.
Moving Beyond Manual Prioritization
Manual prioritization wastes valuable time that could be spent on actual remediation. Without clear scoring, teams often debate which issues to fix first. Different stakeholders have different opinions. Progress stalls while decisions get made.
Accessibility Tracker eliminates this friction. The formulas provide objective, data-driven prioritization. Your team spends time fixing issues instead of discussing which ones to fix. Project velocity increases when everyone works from the same clear priorities.
The scoring also helps with resource allocation. When you know exactly which issues are most critical, you can assign your most experienced developers to the highest-priority problems. Less critical issues can be batched for junior team members or scheduled for later sprints.
Key Insights
Prioritizing accessibility issues doesn’t have to be a manual exercise based on vague severity categories. Accessibility Tracker provides precise, data-driven prioritization through two distinct formulas. The risk factor formula uses real lawsuit data to identify issues most likely to trigger litigation. The user impact formula employs a weighted scoring system to find issues creating the most significant barriers.
Both formulas transform prioritization from hours of manual work to seconds of automated sorting. Your team gets clear direction on which issues to fix first based on your specific objectives. Whether you’re concerned about legal risk or user experience, you have the exact scores needed to make informed decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use both prioritization formulas on the same project?
Yes, you can switch between risk factor and user impact sorting at any time. Many teams use risk factor first to address legal concerns, then switch to user impact for remaining issues.
How often is the risk factor data updated?
The risk factor formula reflects ongoing analysis of website accessibility complaints filed in court. We regularly review new complaints to ensure the scoring remains current with litigation trends.
What if an issue has a low score but seems important to our team?
Use the custom priority feature to mark any issue as high, medium, or low priority regardless of its formula score. This gives you complete control over your remediation workflow.
Do the formulas work with audit reports from any provider?
Yes, Accessibility Tracker works with audit reports from any provider as long as they’re in spreadsheet format and include WCAG success criterion references for each issue.
How much overlap exists between the two formulas?
While some overlap exists, the formulas are distinct. High-risk issues aren’t always high-impact and vice versa. The formulas serve different prioritization objectives.
Can I export the prioritized issue list?
Yes, you can export your prioritized issues with their scores for reporting or sharing with stakeholders who don’t have direct access to Accessibility Tracker.
How to Start
To start prioritizing your audit report issues, sign up for a plan at AccessibilityTracker.com.