Create a Marketing Campaign Asset Accessibility Register

This guide provides a way to track accessibility review status and remediation across a library of marketing assets. It distinguishes unchecked items from verified…

Related topics: accessible content inventory; accessibility remediation tracking; digital content governance

Overview

This guide provides a way to track accessibility review status and remediation across a library of marketing assets. It distinguishes unchecked items from verified results and connects issues to owners and retesting.

Why an asset register is different from a checklist

A pre-publication checklist helps review one asset. An accessibility register helps a team understand the state of many assets over time: which have been checked, which have known barriers, which are high impact, and who is responsible for correction. This matters when a website, email library, social archive, downloadable brochure, and video collection have grown across several years.

The register should not become a claim that every listed item is compliant. It is an inventory and remediation tool. Record the asset identifier, location, format, audience, business importance, accessibility review date, known issue, severity, owner, next action, and verification status. Make the difference between “not checked,” “checked with no issues found,” and “known issue” explicit. Unknown status should never be mistaken for a clean bill of health.

Prioritise by customer impact and exposure

Start with assets that support essential actions: booking, purchase, enquiry, account access, pricing, service instructions, and event registration. Then consider traffic, campaign spend, audience size, and whether the asset is reused frequently. A barrier on a high-traffic landing page is usually more urgent than a defect in an old asset that is no longer linked or distributed.

Use a severity scale that reflects what a person cannot do or understand. For example, a missing caption may block access to key information in a video, while a minor heading inconsistency may create a less severe navigation problem. The scale should guide action, not imply that lower-severity issues are irrelevant. If a known barrier affects an essential journey, consider an accessible alternative while the permanent fix is being developed.

Record evidence and test methods

For each review, note what was tested and how. Automated scans, keyboard checks, screen-reader review, caption inspection, document structure review, and user feedback reveal different kinds of problems. An automated pass does not establish that the content is understandable, and a quick visual check does not establish that a form can be operated without a mouse.

Link to the issue evidence without storing unnecessary personal information. Record the page or asset version because content can change after review. If a page is rebuilt or a video is replaced, mark the old result as no longer current and schedule a new check. Keep remediation notes specific: “CTA cannot be reached by keyboard in the booking modal” is more actionable than “accessibility issue found.”

Assign ownership and remediation status

Every issue should have an owner, target date, status, and verification step. Statuses might include reported, triaged, assigned, in progress, awaiting vendor, fixed, and verified. A ticket marked fixed should not automatically be treated as verified; someone should test the relevant user journey again. If the issue depends on a third-party widget, record the vendor contact and the temporary workaround.

Escalate issues that block important actions or create material legal or customer risks. For smaller defects, group similar problems and fix the underlying template so the team does not repair the same issue repeatedly. If several PDFs have the same tagging problem, updating the document template may be more effective than treating each file as an isolated case. Keep a record of accepted limitations and the reason they remain unresolved, with a review date.

Connect the register to publishing and procurement

Make accessibility status part of the asset lifecycle. A new campaign brief can require captions, alt text, semantic headings, and an accessibility reviewer where relevant. Procurement for a new form builder, video service, or event platform should include accessibility requirements and a way to test the vendor’s output. Do not assume that a vendor’s general claim guarantees the experience of the specific configuration you use.

Before reusing an old asset, check its register status and confirm that the current version is still available. If a campaign is republished in a new format, reassess the aspects that changed. Assign an owner for the register itself and define who can close issues. A simple shared sheet may be enough for a small team, provided it has stable links, controlled access, and a reliable update habit.

Example: triaging an old content library

A small training company has 60 videos, 25 PDFs, and several landing pages. The team first registers the most-used course pages and videos linked from active campaigns. It finds missing captions on two important videos and inaccessible scanned PDFs used during enrolment. Those issues receive owners and deadlines, while lower-traffic archived materials are scheduled for review later.

The team then updates its video production brief to require caption review and creates a document template with proper headings and selectable text. This reduces future defects at the source. The register records the recheck date and the evidence that the corrected videos and PDFs can be used. The process makes progress visible without pretending that a single audit can permanently settle accessibility.

Register maintenance checklist

Review the highest-impact assets first, mark unknown status honestly, document the test method, assign remediation owners, verify completed fixes, and schedule reassessment after material changes. Review overdue issues and vendor dependencies on a predictable cadence. Use the register to identify repeated root causes and improve templates, contracts, and publishing workflows.

An accessibility register is useful when it changes what the team does next. Keep it small enough to maintain, link it to real assets and work tickets, and report on barriers resolved as well as checks completed. Treat accessibility as an ongoing quality responsibility rather than a one-off launch task.

Key takeaways

Inventory high-impact assets and mark unchecked items as unknown, not passed.
Record the review method and version so evidence remains meaningful.
Prioritise barriers that block essential customer actions.
Assign owners and verify fixes instead of closing issues on a promise.
Use repeated findings to improve templates and vendor requirements.

Conclusion and next steps

Begin with active pages, videos, and documents that support booking or purchase. Link each finding to a real asset and remediation owner, then use the first review cycle to improve the production templates that caused recurring barriers.