Introducing AXS
AccessForce Accessibility Experience Score
Accessibility isn't only about whether someone can technically interact with an interface. It's also about whether they can understand it, navigate it, complete it and get help when they need it.
AXS uses AI plus measurable accessibility criteria to evaluate an experience across three groups of dimensions.
One experience.
Seven accessibility dimensions.
One transparent score.
AXS — AccessForce Accessibility Experience Score
47 / 100
Significant opportunities identified in the experience people use today.
- 90–100Highly Accessible Experience
- 75–89Strong Experience
- 60–74Improvement Opportunities
- 40–59Significant Opportunities
- 0–39Major Barriers Identified
What AXS evaluates
Three questions, seven dimensions
40% of the score
Technical Accessibility
Can someone access and operate the interface?
Primarily measurable interface factors.
- Semantics
- Keyboard support
- Focus
- Contrast
- Labels
- Target sizes
- Error identification
30% of the score
Cognitive & Content Accessibility
Can someone understand what the experience is asking them to do?
AI-assisted evaluation.
- Reading level
- Jargon
- Memory burden
- Information density
- Sentence complexity
- Simultaneous decisions
30% of the score
Process Accessibility
Can someone successfully navigate the underlying process?
AI-assisted workflow evaluation.
- Branching
- Required process knowledge
- Irrelevant questions
- Save and resume
- Proactive assistance
- Personalization
- Language choice
- Human escalation
Dimension 1
Visual & Perceivable
Can someone see and take in what is on the page?
- Contrast
- Text sizing
- Hierarchy
- Information density
- Reliance on colour
- Responsive layout
- Zoom behaviour
Dimension 2
Screen Reader & Semantic
Does the experience make sense when it is read aloud?
- Heading structure
- Labels
- Reading order
- Semantic organization
- Alternative text
- Accessible names
- Form relationships
Dimension 3
Motor & Keyboard
Can someone operate it without a mouse or fine motor control?
- Keyboard navigation
- Focus states
- Touch-target sizes
- Precision requirements
- Alternative input
- Time constraints
Dimension 4
Cognitive Accessibility
How much has someone got to hold in mind at once?
- Cognitive load
- Memory burden
- Simultaneous decisions
- Information density
- Concepts presented at once
- Error recovery
- Ability to pause
Dimension 5
Plain Language
Is the wording something people actually use?
- Reading level
- Sentence complexity
- Jargon
- Acronyms
- Government and legal terminology
- Clarity of instructions
- Explanations
Dimension 6
Process Accessibility
Can someone get through the process, not just the page?
- Branching complexity
- Number of steps
- Required understanding of process structure
- Conditional questions
- Documentation complexity
- Save and resume
- Error recovery
- Help availability
Dimension 7
Adaptive & Personalized
Does the experience adjust to the person using it?
- Language selection
- Accessibility preferences
- Alternative input modes
- Voice readiness
- Dynamic simplification
- Personalization
- Hiding irrelevant questions
- Proactive assistance
How AXS works
A technically accessible interface can still create substantial cognitive and process barriers
40%
Technical Accessibility
Primarily measurable interface factors.
30%
Cognitive & Content Accessibility
AI-assisted evaluation.
30%
Process Accessibility
AI-assisted workflow evaluation.
WCAG asks whether people can access the interface.
AccessForce also asks whether people can successfully navigate the experience.
AXS complements established accessibility standards by examining cognitive, content and process dimensions that affect the overall experience.
Before and after
The same requirements, scored before and after the redesign
Before
47
AXS / 100
Significant OpportunitiesVA Form 21-526EZ
AccessForce redesign
After
94
AXS / 100
Highly Accessible ExperienceAdaptive Agentforce conversation over the same requirements
+0
Accessibility Experience Points
47 → 94. Illustrative score until audit completed.
Dimension by dimension
Select “Why?” on any dimension to see the finding, the recommendation and the specific redesign decisions the improvement is credited to.
| Dimension | Before | After | Change | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual & Perceivable | 76 out of 100 before | 95 out of 100 after | +19 | |
Severity: LowImpact area: Visual & Perceivable FindingDense pages ask people to scan long blocks of small print to find what applies to them. AccessForce recommendationPresent one question at a time, at a size and contrast the person can adjust.
Why did the score change?
| ||||
| Screen Reader & Semantic | 66 out of 100 before | 96 out of 100 after | +30 | |
Severity: MediumImpact area: Screen Reader & Semantic FindingDocument structure and field relationships are hard to follow when the experience is read aloud. AccessForce recommendationRebuild the interaction with real headings, labelled controls and a predictable reading order.
Why did the score change?
| ||||
| Motor & Keyboard | 62 out of 100 before | 96 out of 100 after | +34 | |
Severity: MediumImpact area: Motor & Keyboard FindingCompleting the experience assumes precise input and, on paper, handwriting and signatures. AccessForce recommendationMake every step keyboard-operable with large targets, and accept spoken answers.
Why did the score change?
| ||||
| Cognitive Accessibility | 34 out of 100 before | 93 out of 100 after | +59 | |
Severity: HighImpact area: Cognitive Accessibility FindingApplicants may need to recall substantial service, medical and treatment information. AccessForce recommendationBreak information gathering into smaller conversations and allow unresolved information to be saved for later.
Why did the score change?
| ||||
| Plain Language | 36 out of 100 before | 95 out of 100 after | +59 | |
Severity: HighImpact area: Plain Language FindingGovernment and legal terminology assumes familiarity most applicants don't have. AccessForce recommendationAsk in plain language and explain terms in place, while preserving the original meaning.
Why did the score change?
| ||||
| Process Accessibility | 28 out of 100 before | 91 out of 100 after | +63 | |
Severity: HighImpact area: Process Accessibility FindingApplicants must navigate multiple types of claim information. AccessForce recommendationLet Agentforce determine the relevant path through conversational questions.
Why did the score change?
| ||||
| Adaptive & Personalized | 32 out of 100 before | 94 out of 100 after | +62 | |
Severity: HighImpact area: Adaptive & Personalized FindingThe experience is the same for everyone, and assistance has to be discovered before it can be used. AccessForce recommendationAsk about accessibility needs and language first, then adapt the experience to the answers.
Why did the score change?
| ||||
Illustrative score until audit completed. Each change is credited to a specific redesign decision — a score never moves simply because a conversation exists.
Why did the score change?
Process Accessibility
28 → 91+63
Why?
- Irrelevant questions removed from view
- Branching handled dynamically
- Save and resume added
- Help available throughout
- One task presented at a time
- Human escalation available
Cognitive Accessibility
34 → 93+59
Why?
- Reduced information density
- One question at a time
- Plain-language explanations
- “I don't know” supported
- Approximate answers supported where appropriate
- Follow-up items saved rather than blocking progress
Biggest accessibility opportunities
Four prototype audits, compared
Prototype accessibility audits
- 1Housing Choice Voucher WaitlistLocal housing authority pre-applicationOpportunity: HighAXS 38 → 93Major Barriers Identified
- 2Help With a Utility BillLocal energy assistance applicationOpportunity: HighAXS 38 → 93Major Barriers Identified
- 3U.S. CitizenshipUSCIS Form N-400 naturalization applicationOpportunity: HighAXS 39 → 92Major Barriers Identified
- 4Utah Benefits31-page multi-program benefits applicationOpportunity: MediumAXS 42 → 93Significant Opportunities
- 5Filing a Federal Tax ReturnIRS Form 1040 and the Free File optionsOpportunity: MediumAXS 42 → 93Significant Opportunities
- 6California CalFresh Food AssistanceCalFresh application, administered by countiesOpportunity: MediumAXS 44 → 94Significant Opportunities
- 7New York Unemployment InsuranceFirst claim and weekly certificationOpportunity: MediumAXS 44 → 93Significant Opportunities
- 8VA Disability CompensationVA Form 21-526EZ federal disability claimOpportunity: MediumAXS 47 → 94Significant Opportunities
Illustrative prototype scores produced by AccessForce. Lower scores indicate larger improvement opportunities, not organisational failure.
A second, separate score
AXS measures the experience. Form Friction measures finding it.
Form Friction measures how hard it is to find and navigate the correct process — the work that happens before and around the form itself.
Form Friction runs the opposite way to AXS: a higher Form Friction score means MORE difficulty. AXS goes up as an experience improves; Form Friction goes down.
Discovery
How difficult is finding the correct form?
Eligibility Routing
How much program or process knowledge does the applicant need?
Branching
How many paths or conditional decisions exist?
Documentation
How difficult is understanding what evidence is required?
Cross-Agency Complexity
Does the person need to coordinate multiple agencies or processes?
Completion
How difficult is completing the experience?
Utah Multi-Program Benefits, before and after
Before AccessForce
82 / 100
Severe frictionAfter AccessForce
24 / 100
Low friction58 points less friction
| Dimension | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| DiscoveryHow difficult is finding the correct form? | 85 / 100Severe friction | 15 / 100Low friction | −70 friction |
| Eligibility RoutingHow much program or process knowledge does the applicant need? | 88 / 100Severe friction | 25 / 100Low friction | −63 friction |
| BranchingHow many paths or conditional decisions exist? | 80 / 100Severe friction | 30 / 100Low friction | −50 friction |
| DocumentationHow difficult is understanding what evidence is required? | 78 / 100High friction | 22 / 100Low friction | −56 friction |
| Cross-Agency ComplexityDoes the person need to coordinate multiple agencies or processes? | 70 / 100High friction | 20 / 100Low friction | −50 friction |
| CompletionHow difficult is completing the experience? | 90 / 100Severe friction | 30 / 100Low friction | −60 friction |
Illustrative prototype scores produced by AccessForce. Form Friction describes how hard a process is to find and navigate; it is not a compliance measure.
Multilingual AXS
AXS by language
Accessibility should be measured in every language — not just English.
English
English
91
Spanish
Español
88
Chinese
中文
84
Vietnamese
Tiếng Việt
79
Illustrative prototype comparison, generated for demonstration. Not a compliance certification.
See multilingual access