Market research Eighth Annual State of Digital Accessibility Report
Sep 16, 2026
Sep 16, 2026
Forewords
Jon Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer, Level Access
Digital accessibility has entered a new phase. AI is now part of how many organizations plan, design, build, test, document, and manage digital experiences. What our findings highlight, however, is that the adoption of new technology alone does not create accessibility. The organizations realizing the greatest value from AI are the ones pairing new tools with mature practices, strong governance, effective training, cross-functional communication, and a culture where accessibility is considered during all aspects of the digital experience life cycle.
AI can accelerate and scale progress. What it cannot do is replace the judgment, accountability, and lived experience that make accessibility meaningful. This matters for the people excluded by inaccessible technology in a world where technology is more essential than ever to day-to-day life. While legal and regulatory pressure remains significant, the goal of improved accessibility is not simply to avoid risk or pass a checklist. The goal is to create digital experiences that work better for more people.
As AI becomes more deeply embedded in the way organizations operate, the path forward is clear: Use AI thoughtfully, invest in people and processes, include users with disabilities, and build accessibility into the culture of digital work from the start.
Christopher M. Lee, PhD
CEO and President, G3ict / IAAP
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence is transforming the digital landscape. As organizations adopt these technologies, accessibility and ethical AI must remain closely linked. Technology should serve everyone, including people with disabilities, so that innovation expands opportunities instead of creating new barriers.
This year’s State of Digital Accessibility Report highlights both progress and areas for growth. Organizations increasingly recognize that accessibility goes beyond compliance and drives innovation, customer experience, and digital inclusion.
Achieving this vision requires a robust, growing accessibility profession. The International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP), through its certifications, professional development, and member community, equips organizations with the expertise to create accessible digital experiences. IAAP-certified professionals and members are essential to advancing accessibility, shaping responsible AI, and ensuring people with disabilities are included in the future of technology.
As you review this report, we encourage you to see accessibility as a strategic investment in people, innovation, and ethical digital transformation. Together, we can create a future where technology serves everyone.
Key insights
AI is accelerating how teams build digital experiences faster than how they test them.
AI adoption is broad but scattered.
Professionals want people kept in the loop.
AI is most effective within a mature program.
U.S. litigation is escalating sharply.
Executive support is strong, but may be reactive.
Governance is table stakes, but policies may be stronger on paper than in practice.
Proof of accessibility gains strength as a procurement gate.
Competing priorities remain teams’ top challenge.
AI is everywhere, but its impact hinges on program maturity.
AI is now embedded in how accessibility work gets done, but organizations use it in very different ways. The teams gaining the most significant measurable value from AI also have seven core markers of program readiness in place: governance, communication, training, workflow integration, executive support, procurement requirements, and a culture of accessibility.
Core markers of accessibility program readiness
Note: The seven program readiness markers map to the dimensions of Level Access’s Digital Accessibility Maturity Model (DAMM™).
| Marker | Examples |
|---|---|
| Governance | Documented policy, an accountable owner, and dedicated budget |
| Communication | Clear and frequent communication about digital accessibility between teams |
| Training | Education sponsored by the organization covering best practices for making digital experiences accessible |
| Workflow integration | Proactive integration of accessibility across the software development life cycle (SDLC) |
| Executive support | Executives who actively encourage the adoption of digital accessibility |
| Procurement requirements | Accessibility is a documented requirement in the procurement of third-party technology |
| Culture of accessibility | Shared ownership of accessibility across the organization |
How mature is your accessibility practice?
AI adoption for accessibility is widespread, and so is AI optimism.
Across sectors and markets, professionals report that AI has had a broad, positive effect on their digital accessibility practices.
of professionals say they use AI for digital accessibility
AI use for digital accessibility, across sectors and markets
There are variations in AI adoption across organizational types and markets.
AI adoption tracks with accessibility program readiness.
Adoption of AI for digital accessibility is highest among organizations with key markers of program readiness. This suggests mature teams aren’t treating AI as a shortcut—they’re embedding it alongside the core elements of an accessibility program.
Optimism about AI is high, and highest where practices are strongest.
feel AI will have a positive impact on their accessibility progress.
say AI capabilities are an important factor when they purchase or integrate digital accessibility tools.
of organizations with all program readiness markers agree AI will have a positive impact, versus 58% of those with none.
“The teams doing this well are not prompting harder. They are handing AI the specific criteria up front, in plain structured language, and letting it hold that line across everything it touches. That is why optimism is highest where practice is strongest. It’s not faith. It’s the results they can prove.”
Dana Randall
Executive Creative Director, Level Access
The playbook for AI implementation is still being written.
Organizations agree that AI belongs in their accessibility work, but no consensus has formed yet about exactly when and where to use it.
There is no single, standard application of AI for accessibility.
Usage of AI tools for digital accessibility is spread evenly across the SDLC instead of concentrated in a few proven applications.
The impact of AI on accessibility is broad and multi-faceted.
The fairly even spread of use cases across the SDLC may be a positive signal that AI is helping teams embed accessibility into the experience creation process holistically, rather than relying exclusively on reactive testing and fixes—while also making the work easier to document.
say AI has impacted their accessibility practices in some capacity.
How is AI impacting digital accessibility?
“For decades, accessibility leaders have been asking the people who create products to build accessibility in from the start: understanding requirements; designing, writing, and coding to those specifications; testing their work; and fixing issues before release. What makes this moment so exciting is that AI is finally making that vision achievable at scale, helping makers integrate accessibility into their everyday work and providing guidance at the exact moments when decisions are made.”
Karen Hawkins
Principal of Accessible Design, Level Access
More automation is not translating into reduced spend.
While 22% of respondents say they rely less on manual evaluation as a result of AI, only a small fraction say they’re spending less. This suggests teams are reallocating resources, rather than reducing them: AI is absorbing routine work, and the money is moving to the work that takes judgment and that produces evidence.
say they spend less on accessibility as a result of AI adoption.
“As AI accelerates the creation of digital experiences, accessibility cannot be left to automation alone. The true measure of accessibility is the experience of people with disabilities, not the output of a tool. Organizations that succeed will use AI to scale their efforts while ensuring that human expertise and the perspectives of people with disabilities continue to guide decisions, validate outcomes, and shape inclusive experiences.”
Jon Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer, Level Access
AI is pulling accessibility work earlier, but that may be truncation, not proactivity.
Organizations say they are addressing accessibility earlier than they did last year, but this is likely because AI has compressed the front end of the SDLC.
This year, more organizations are addressing accessibility in the planning stage of digital experience creation.
AI isn’t just accelerating the SDLC, it’s changing the standard order of operations.
AI is accelerating the building stages of experience creation much faster than testing, and it’s moving building work earlier.
of respondents who use AI say it has accelerated at least one stage of the SDLC.
Where AI is accelerating, and compressing, the SDLC
Design may show the largest effect because of how recently the tools arrived. AI has been embedded in development for some time, but broad adoption by designers has only happened lately, so design may have more new ground to gain.
This shift makes a reactive, testing-based approach to accessibility even harder to sustain. When teams do not implement accessibility in the early stages of digital experience creation, they are left with two choices: They can ship accessibility issues and introduce broken experiences and risk, or they can delay releases to fix issues after design and development have finished.
Mature programs are taking a third path: Put requirements where work happens—inside design files, editors, and CI/CD pipelines—so accessibility is built into experiences from the beginning, not just checked after the fact.
Respondent perspectives: How are teams governing the accessibility of AI-generated content?
“Any AI-generated content that surfaces in customer-facing products goes through the same accessibility review checkpoints as human-authored content.”
“AI features are incorporated into our existing accessibility program, which includes accessibility requirements during design and development, independent accessibility audits and validation, and remediation tracking.”
“We do not yet have a fully documented accessibility process specifically for AI-generated content, but we recognize that human review is important and that accessibility should not be left entirely to AI tools.”
AI improves accessibility outcomes most when programs are already mature.
AI use is close to universal, but AI alone does not drive impact. The organizations benefiting most from using AI for digital accessibility also invest in the people, processes, and governance that define a sustainable accessibility program.
AI use alone does not predict program effectiveness.
Our survey asked respondents which accessibility key performance indicators (KPIs) they formally track and how those changed as a result of their accessibility work. We then compared the specific actions taken by respondents who reported improvement across every tracked KPI (“improvers”) against those who did not, to understand what actually moves accessibility performance.
AI adoption alone did not strongly correlate with better performance across key indicators. The actions tied to governance, training, and culture separate the improvers from the general sample by roughly three to four times as much as AI adoption.
What separates the organizations improving across the board?
| Marker | Improvers | All respondents | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use AI for accessibility | 90% | 80% | +10 |
| Have accessibility budget they plan to maintain or increase | 95% | 67% | +28 |
| Say their policy has major operational impact | 89% | 60% | +29 |
| Say executives are highly supportive | 91% | 62% | +29 |
| Begin addressing accessibility in planning | 67% | 35% | +32 |
| Strongly agree accessibility is core to their organization’s culture | 81% | 43% | +38 |
| Say their training is highly effective | 88% | 49% | +39 |
| Strongly agree teams communicate clearly and frequently about accessibility | 81% | 40% | +41 |
Organizations with key markers of program readiness benefit most from AI adoption.
Note: Percentages shown are based only on organizations using AI for accessibility. They refer to the proportion of respondents in each readiness category who reported the corresponding benefit.
AI amplifies a mature program; it doesn’t substitute for one. That may help explain why spending on digital accessibility is not falling: The teams that get the most value from AI are using it to build on, rather than replace, the other elements of a sustainable program.
Organizations don’t need a perfect program to benefit. Those with some, but not all, readiness markers were much more likely to report benefiting from AI adoption than those with no markers, suggesting progress matters on its own.
Check your accessibility maturity
“AI doesn’t create a strong accessibility program any more than buying a new Mac makes you a professional photographer. The organizations seeing the biggest gains aren’t replacing fundamentals with AI. They’re using AI to make good practices scale farther and move faster. The encouraging part is that you don’t need a perfect program to benefit. Every step toward better governance, clearer ownership, stronger training, or more consistent processes gives AI something useful to amplify.”
Corbb O’Connor
Director of Thought Leadership, Level Access
Human oversight is essential.
Professionals widely agree that people need to stay involved in accessibility work, and this conviction is strongest among the most mature programs.
of professionals overall feel it is critical that humans stay closely involved in accessibility processes as AI advances.
of those at organizations with all program readiness markers agree.
Persistent legal activity and tightening procurement requirements continue to raise the bar for accessibility.
At the same time that AI is adding complexity to digital accessibility workflows, the legal and regulatory stakes of inaccessibility are rising—as are the business impacts for digital product vendors.
Legal and regulatory activity remains widespread, particularly in the U.S.
Organizations continue to face high levels of legal and regulatory pressure. In the U.S., that pressure has climbed sharply: 72% say they faced action this year, up from 53% last year.
of professionals globally say they faced legal or regulatory action related to digital accessibility in the past 12 months, consistent with last year.
Reported legal and regulatory activity by region
The U.S. spike is driven mainly by the private sector. The brief plateau in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III lawsuits seems to be over, which raises the stakes stateside.
In Europe, the first year of European Accessibility Act (EAA) enforcement has been slow, though more active enforcement is expected.
“Regulations may change, but accessibility expectations don’t. Organizations that anchor their accessibility efforts in user experience and operational excellence are better positioned to succeed regardless of how the regulatory landscape evolves.”
Jon Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer, Level Access
Organizations increasingly perceive legal action as inevitable, but program readiness may reduce risk.
Nearly half of respondents expect legal or regulatory action in the year ahead. The reasons they give have less to do with internal challenges than with the environment in which they operate and the profile of their brand.
of professionals anticipate legal or regulatory risk in the year ahead.
of U.S. respondents feel at risk.
of U.K. and EU respondents feel at risk.
Does expected risk match actual experience?
While retail carries one of the longest histories of legal action, it is also among the most likely to under-forecast its own risk, suggesting some retail businesses may be caught off guard by accessibility-related lawsuits.
The top two reasons organizations feel at risk are both forms of inevitability.
Respondents increasingly perceive legal and regulatory exposure as a condition of doing business rather than a problem they can solve. The two most-cited reasons—the sheer volume of accessibility litigation and brand profile—both frame legal action as something that happens to an organization rather than something it causes.
Unsure about your organization’s accessibility risk? Get a free risk assessment from our experts.
Adoption of program readiness markers corresponds to reduced legal and regulatory action.
Among organizations that formally track reduction in legal or regulatory action as an accessibility KPI, those with key markers of program readiness, such as governance, training, and workflow integration, are more likely to report reduced action year-over-year than those without these markers. That pattern suggests investment in a sustainable accessibility program helps mitigate legal and regulatory risk.
Reduced legal action (e.g., private litigation) and accessibility program readiness
| Reported change | All markers | Some markers | No markers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly improved | 65% | 44% | 20% |
| Somewhat improved | 32% | 47% | 40% |
| No change | 3% | 9% | 40% |
Reduced regulatory action (e.g., contact with regulatory authorities) and accessibility program readiness
| Reported change | All markers | Some markers | No markers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly improved | 68% | 45% | 17% |
| Somewhat improved | 30% | 45% | 25% |
| No change | 2% | 10% | 58% |
Broad AI use in the SDLC may be associated with higher legal exposure.
The correlation between AI use and reported legal and regulatory action may simply be due to the fact that AI adoption is higher among larger, U.S.-based organizations. However, teams should be mindful that, as AI accelerates experience creation, the risk of shipping non-conformant experiences grows if accessibility does not keep pace.
Faced action in the past 12 months
Expect action in the year ahead
“Your compliance goal should be proving that accessibility is part of how your organization operates. That’s the advice I’ve heard repeatedly from legal experts and from people with disabilities themselves. AI has changed the speed of the game. It can scale exclusion across thousands of experiences almost instantly. But for the first time, it can also help us scale accessibility. The organizations that win won’t be the ones racing AI. They’ll be the ones using it to build better habits at scale.”
Corbb O’Connor
Director of Thought Leadership, Level Access
More buyers than ever expect proof of accessibility as a condition of purchase.
Accessibility is increasingly a procurement requirement. For business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-government (B2G) vendors, an inaccessible experience means lost deals.
These rising expectations around procurement become evident in the factors organizations cite to justify investment in digital accessibility. Among B2B and B2G organizations, 21% name competitive pressure as their primary reason for committing to accessibility, up from 14% in 2025.
Needs to prove accessibility to buyers? We can help. Start by requesting a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT®).
Respondent perspective: AI procurement
“When evaluating or procuring AI tools, our team now includes accessibility impact as a criterion in vendor assessments. We ask vendors to demonstrate how their outputs perform against WCAG 2.2 success criteria and whether their systems can produce appropriately tagged, structured content by default.”
Support is available.
Prioritization lags behind.
Even when they understand its value, professionals still struggle to advocate for accessibility as a higher-level organizational focus. While executive support is available, the data suggests it’s often triggered by legal or regulatory consequences rather than proactive commitment.
Executive support holds steady.
Levels of executive support remain identical year over year: 62% say executives are highly supportive and 34% say they are moderately supportive, in both 2026 and 2025.
Teams understand the value of accessibility.
Professionals continue to connect digital accessibility to a wide range of business objectives.
believe digital accessibility is a competitive advantage.
Accessibility improves a broad range of business outcomes.
Respondents most often connect accessibility to improved user and customer experience, and the data backs the instinct. Among organizations that formally track reduction in customer or user complaints as a KPI, 96% say that metric improved as a result of their accessibility efforts.
Navigating competing priorities remains the top challenge organizations face.
Despite support from leaders, and a strong business case, respondents were most likely to rank competing priorities among the top three challenges limiting their accessibility progress—a challenge consistent with last year’s findings. This suggests making accessibility a top priority, rather than capability or budget, is the most significant barrier to teams’ success. Prioritization may only get harder as AI raises output expectations for digital teams.
Note: “Difficulty prioritizing issues” was added as an answer option in 2026.
Encouragingly, fewer respondents ranked insufficient time and lack of alignment among their top three challenges this year, both areas where AI may be helping by supporting remediation and reporting.
Respondent perspectives: Barriers to buy-in
“Accessibility is not currently managed as an organizational priority. Instead, it is driven by a small number of individual contributors who choose to invest extra time in it. Despite ongoing efforts, I’ve struggled to get accessible development and testing formally included in our processes.”
“The lack of interest from leadership means that most people don’t really care about accessibility, and it’s a small group of people who are invested and doing what they can to move things in a better direction.”
“My team is trying to get accessibility to be more of a priority, but the C-level does not see it as so yet. Some teams care about it, some don’t.”
Executive support may be reactive.
One explanation for persistent challenges with prioritization is the reactive nature of executive buy-in. While support is present, most organizations that consider executives “highly supportive” have been served a lawsuit or contacted by regulators. This suggests support may hinge on an external catalyst rather than organic advocacy.
Served a lawsuit
Contacted by regulators
“The data suggests that executive support and organizational prioritization are not always the same thing. Many organizations have leaders who recognize the value of accessibility, yet teams still struggle to secure priority, establish accountability, or embed accessibility into decision-making processes. When leadership support is in reaction to a lawsuit, complaint or regulatory action, organizations need to be intentional about turning that attention into lasting operational change. Sustained accessibility happens with ongoing leadership engagement, when it moves beyond the concerns of a small group of advocates and becomes a shared organizational priority.”
Jackie Dutot
Lead Engagement Manager, Program and Strategy
Opportunities remain to integrate accessibility into organizational culture.
Perhaps as a consequence of surface-level buy-in and ineffective training, fewer than half of respondents strongly agree that accessibility is part of their culture—and limited communication backs that up.
strongly agree that accessibility is part of their organization’s culture.
strongly agree that teams communicate clearly and frequently about accessibility.
These two markers are among the clearest dividers between the organizations reporting measurable progress and everyone else. Among those that improved across every accessibility KPI they track, 81% strongly agree accessibility is part of their culture—nearly double the 43% overall—and 81% say teams communicate clearly and frequently about it, versus 40% overall.
The real work ahead is reframing accessibility from a technology problem into an organizational commitment.
Training is essential, but effectiveness remains in question.
Consistent with last year’s findings, effective training tracks closely with accessibility success. Yet while training exists at most organizations, respondents remain skeptical that it’s working. The problem isn’t training coverage—it’s quality.
of organizations have digital accessibility training.
say that training is highly effective.
use professional accessibility certifications (e.g., IAAP CPACC).
Respondent perspectives: The knowledge gap
“I am the only certified accessibility specialist. I’m expected to train others who have different goals for their careers and are not especially interested in it.”
“We have pockets of accessibility knowledge within our team (UX designers and engineers), but no formal method of sharing that knowledge.”
Effective training is tied to broader program success.
of organizations improving across every KPI they track say their training is highly effective, versus 49% overall.
“Training connects accessibility commitments with measurable results. The most effective programs prioritize people, as informed actions, rather than intentions, lead to lasting inclusion.”
Christopher M. Lee, PhD
CEO and President, G3ict / IAAP
Accessibility governance across industries
Governance for digital accessibility is now table stakes—and it’s worth pausing to recognize the progress this represents. Across our last three surveys, the foundations of a managed program have held firm or grown stronger:
- Nearly every organization now names someone accountable for accessibility (97%, up from 93% in both 2024 and 2025).
- The percentage of respondents with dedicated accessibility budgets has held firm in the mid-80s, a sign that accessibility funding is sticking rather than slipping.
- Policy adoption has climbed steadily, from 82% in 2024 to 85% in 2025 to 91% today.
Today, digital accessibility governance is an operational norm. The next wave of progress will come from continuing to build infrastructure, while also getting more out of the programs already in place.
Accountability is established.
Accountability is not only in place; its value is recognized. Respondents were most likely to rank having an accountable party as the single most impactful action taken to achieve and maintain accessibility.
Budgets are stable.
have a dedicated budget, compared to 85% in 2025.
plan to maintain or increase budget, compared to 68% in 2025.
Policies are in place, but their impact is not always widespread.
Policies tend to be less effective in government organizations than in private businesses. Two factors may help explain the gap: First, public-sector organizations are less likely to have a dedicated budget and more likely to expect that budget to be at risk. Second, they’re less likely to say they have access to highly effective training.
Most organizations track measurable KPIs for accessibility.
The majority of respondents formally track KPIs for accessibility progress, with reduction in the most critical accessibility errors ranking as the most common KPI.
of professionals track at least one KPI for digital accessibility.
Top three tracked accessibility KPIs
| KPI | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Reduction in the most critical accessibility errors | 48% |
| Reduction in overall accessibility errors | 46% |
| Reduction in customer / user complaints | 45% |
Benchmark your accessibility maturity
“A policy is important, but a policy by itself doesn’t improve accessibility. Real progress happens when people know exactly what they’re expected to do differently on Monday morning because that policy exists. The organizations getting the most value from accessibility governance translate policy into decisions, workflows, budgets, procurement requirements, and accountability. For many public-sector teams, the opportunity isn’t creating another policy. It’s connecting the policy they already have to the work people do every day.”
Corbb O’Connor
Director of Thought Leadership, Level Access
Conclusion and action items
AI has transformed the way digital experiences get created, introducing risks and opportunities for digital accessibility. What it hasn’t changed is the foundational infrastructure of a sustainable accessibility program.
The organizations making the most progress with accessibility today aren’t just integrating AI. They’re using it to amplify a broader program, supported by governance, effective training, and a culture of inclusion.
As technology continues to evolve—and the potential to scale inaccessible experiences grows—the organizations that keep pace will be those who not only invest in the right tools, but embrace accessibility as a shared way of working.
Action items for 2027
- Embed accessibility in AI-enabled workflows:
Build accessibility checkpoints into your AI-accelerated planning, design, and development processes. AI is accelerating experience creation far faster than testing, so treating accessibility only as a final quality check will become increasingly impractical. - Maximize ROI by reinvesting AI efficiency gains into building program maturity:
The teams benefiting the most from AI are those also investing in program maturity. If your organization’s adoption of AI has reduced the time and cost of certain aspects of digital accessibility, use those resources to reinforce budget, governance, and processes that require human judgment. - Invest in training quality, not just coverage:
Most organizations offer digital accessibility training, but only 49% call it highly effective. Close the knowledge gap by aligning accessibility training with practical outcomes, and ensuring courses are relevant to learners’ day-to-day responsibilities. Provide support for accessibility certification and independent professional development. - Use reactive executive support as a launchpad for ongoing commitment:
Executive support is highest among organizations that have received legal or regulatory action. Don’t avoid conversations about compliance and business risk, but counter the belief that accessibility-related legal action is inevitable by showing that proactive, embedded accessibility is a reliable path toward long-term risk mitigation. - Put your policy to work:
Most organizations have a policy (91%), but only 60% say it has a major impact on operations. The opportunity now lies more in execution, not adoption. Review the impact your policy is having on operations and consider how to embed the policy more deeply into everyday processes. - Be able to answer three questions:
83% of buyers now require proof of accessibility before they purchase, and regulatory and customer expectations are rising. Assume you will be asked to present evidence of accessibility to a customer, a regulator, or a procurement team. What can you produce for every property in your estate? Is it current? How long would it take you to assemble it?
Put the data into practice
Methodology
Level Access engaged Sapio Research to perform the quantitative research upon which this report is based. A total of 2,530 professionals worldwide were surveyed online during June and July 2026. The sample included 2,050 respondents from the general market and 480 respondents from Level Access’s and IAAP’s own communities. Every respondent had some involvement in the creation or maintenance of digital experiences.
A few notes on our methodology:
- The qualitative perspectives cited in this report come from professionals within Level Access’s and IAAP’s communities, rather than the general market.
- Our analysis of accessibility program readiness draws on responses to select survey questions that gauged the reported strength of programs across the seven dimensions of Level Access’s Digital Accessibility Maturity Model (DAMM™).
- Throughout the report, we reference our research from 2025. That research surveyed 1,622 professionals, including 212 from Level Access’s and IAAP’s communities, in July and August 2025. Learn more about the methodology for our 2025 report.
Respondent snapshot
Total respondents
Region
Sector
Organization size
Revenue
Seniority
Respondent demographics
By country
| Country | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| U.S. | 52% |
| U.K. | 19% |
| Germany | 12% |
| France | 4% |
| Netherlands | 4% |
| Sweden | 4% |
| Other | 5% |
By sector
| Sector | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Private | 80% |
| Public | 20% |
By organization size
| Organization size | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| 5,000+ employees | 40% |
| 3,000–4,999 employees | 31% |
| 1,000–2,999 employees | 26% |
| 100–999 employees | 2% |
| Fewer than 100 employees | Less than 1% |
By revenue
| Revenue | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| $100.1M–$1B | 55% |
| More than $1B | 32% |
| $10M–$100M | 10% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
| Less than $10M | 0% |
By seniority
| Seniority | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| Top-level or most senior (Board, C-level, VP, Senior Director, Director, or equivalent) | 41% |
| High-level management (Senior Manager of a team or department) | 35% |
| Technical (development, programming, technician, analyst) | 8% |
| Mid-level management | 7% |
| Junior management | 3% |
| Non-technical individual contributor | 3% |
| Administrative / office / student worker | 1% |
| Other | 1% |
| Manual worker | Less than 1% |
By industry
| Industry | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| IT, technology, and telecoms | 22% |
| Retail | 18% |
| Financial services | 15% |
| State / regional government | 6% |
| Central / federal government | 6% |
| Business and professional services | 6% |
| Manufacturing and production | 4% |
| Other commercial (private sector) | 4% |
| Public higher education | 3% |
| Public healthcare | 2% |
| Construction and property | 2% |
| Local county government | 2% |
| Energy, oil / gas, and utilities | 2% |
| Private healthcare | 1% |
| Distribution and transport of goods | 1% |
| Travel and hospitality | 1% |
| Charity / not for profit | 1% |
| Accessibility consulting / software | 1% |
| Consumer services | 1% |
| Private higher education | 1% |
| Media and entertainment | Less than 1% |
| Private primary / secondary education | Less than 1% |
| Local city government | Less than 1% |
By role
| Role | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|
| IT services / enterprise systems | 19% |
| Accessibility | 10% |
| Engineering | 9% |
| UX / UI design | 8% |
| Product | 8% |
| Legal / compliance | 6% |
| Operations | 5% |
| Finance | 5% |
| HR / training / recruitment / talent | 4% |
| Risk / fraud / compliance / governance | 4% |
| Business direction and strategy | 4% |
| Client services / customer services | 4% |
| Marketing and communications | 2% |
| Administration | 2% |
| E-commerce | 2% |
| Business development / sales | 2% |
| Disability services | 1% |
| Instructional design | 1% |
| Teaching | 1% |
| Other department not listed | 1% |
| Production / manufacturing | Less than 1% |
| Purchasing / procurement | Less than 1% |
| Trading / merchandising / retail shop floor | Less than 1% |
| Logistics / supply chain / transport | Less than 1% |
Color classification support is powered by the ColorADD® system, an internationally recognized color identification language designed to help people with color vision deficiencies more easily distinguish and interpret colors.
Learn more about ColorADD® at ColorADD.
Share
Subscribe for updates
