Showing Utah county sites. All U.S. county sites
A 91
Average accessibility score of 27 fully scanned Utah county sites
4th
of 48 states, ranked by average accessibility score
27 of 29
Sites fully scanned. We couldn't fully scan 2, so they're listed without grades
B 88
U.S. county average accessibility score, 2435 fully scanned sites
Utah's state site, utah.gov, ranks 8th of 51 state sites with a B. State rankings.
How Utah county accessibility scores are distributed
Smoothed distribution of the 27 fully scanned Utah county sites, score 0 to 100. Height shows how many sites score near each value.
Distribution of 27 scores. The data table lists counts by score range.
- Utah average
- U.S. county average
View the data table
| Score range | Sites |
|---|---|
| 0 to 9 | 0 |
| 10 to 19 | 0 |
| 20 to 29 | 0 |
| 30 to 39 | 0 |
| 40 to 49 | 0 |
| 50 to 59 | 0 |
| 60 to 69 | 0 |
| 70 to 79 | 0 |
| 80 to 89 | 11 |
| 90 to 100 | 16 |
Utah counties by accessibility grade
Each county with a site on our list is colored by that site's grade. Select a county to open its report. The table lists every site.
- A (90 to 100)
- B to C (70 to 89)
- D to F (below 70)
- Not fully scanned
Utah counties by accessibility grade, compared with all U.S. counties
Share of fully scanned sites in each grade band. Utah: 27 sites. U.S.: 2435 sites.
- A (90 to 100)
- B to C (70 to 89)
- D to F (below 70)
View the data table
| Group | A (90 to 100) | B to C (70 to 89) | D to F (below 70) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utah | 59% (16) | 41% (11) | 0% (0) |
| All U.S. counties | 45% (1,107) | 52% (1,257) | 3% (71) |
Top 3 Utah county sites by accessibility score
#1 in Utah · U.S. rank 1
Emery County, UT
A 100 accessibility
- Accessibility A
- Botability C
- Security A
- Usability F
#1 in Utah · U.S. rank 1
Garfield County, UT
A 100 accessibility
- Accessibility A
- Botability A
- Security B
- Usability F
#1 in Utah · U.S. rank 1
Wayne County, UT
A 100 accessibility
- Accessibility A
- Botability B
- Security A
- Usability F
What each check means
- Links have a discernible name. Links have unique, descriptive text so users know where they go. Screen reader users cannot identify or interact with elements.
- Background and foreground colors have a sufficient contrast ratio. Text and background colors meet minimum contrast ratios. Users with low vision cannot read your text.
- Heading elements appear in a sequentially-descending order. Page headings follow a logical order without skipping levels. Keyboard users cannot efficiently navigate your site.
- Elements with an ARIA [role] that require children to contain a specific [role] have all required children. Interactive groups contain all the child elements they need to work correctly. Screen readers cannot navigate grouped elements like menus or lists.
- [aria-hidden="true"] elements do not contain focusable descendents. Interactive elements are not hidden from screen reader users. Keyboard users can focus elements that screen readers cannot announce.
All Utah county sites by accessibility score
| Rank | Site | Checks passed | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
emery.utah.gov
Emery County, UT U.S. rank 1 |
29 of 29 checks pass | A |
| 1 |
garfield.utah.gov
Garfield County, UT U.S. rank 1 |
33 of 33 checks pass | A |
| 1 |
waynecountyutah.gov
Wayne County, UT U.S. rank 1 |
21 of 21 checks pass | A |
| 2 |
juabcounty.gov
Juab County, UT U.S. rank 2 |
34 of 35 checks pass | A |
| 2 |
utahcounty.gov
Utah County, UT U.S. rank 2 |
35 of 36 checks pass | A |
| 3 |
saltlakecounty.gov
Salt Lake County, UT U.S. rank 3 |
29 of 30 checks pass | A |
| 4 |
carbon.utah.gov
Carbon County, UT U.S. rank 5 |
17 of 18 checks pass | A |
| 5 |
ironcountyut.gov
Iron County, UT U.S. rank 6 |
27 of 29 checks pass | A |
| 5 |
richcounty.gov
Rich County, UT U.S. rank 6 |
29 of 31 checks pass | A |
| 5 |
webercountyutah.gov
Weber County, UT U.S. rank 6 |
28 of 30 checks pass | A |
| 6 |
boxeldercountyut.gov
Box Elder County, UT U.S. rank 8 |
33 of 36 checks pass | A |
| 6 |
kane.utah.gov
Kane County, UT U.S. rank 8 |
34 of 37 checks pass | A |
| 6 |
morgancountyutah.gov
Morgan County, UT U.S. rank 8 |
31 of 34 checks pass | A |
| 6 |
sanpetecountyutah.gov
Sanpete County, UT U.S. rank 8 |
33 of 36 checks pass | A |
| 7 |
millardcounty.gov
Millard County, UT U.S. rank 9 |
28 of 31 checks pass | A |
| 7 |
sanjuancountyut.gov
San Juan County, UT U.S. rank 9 |
28 of 31 checks pass | A |
| 8 |
summitcountyutah.gov
Summit County, UT U.S. rank 10 |
35 of 39 checks pass | B |
| 9 |
beaver.utah.gov
Beaver County, UT U.S. rank 11 |
31 of 35 checks pass | B |
| 9 |
duchesne.utah.gov
Duchesne County, UT U.S. rank 11 |
23 of 26 checks pass | B |
| 9 |
grandcountyutah.net
Grand County, UT U.S. rank 11 |
32 of 36 checks pass | B |
| 9 |
tooeleco.gov
Tooele County, UT U.S. rank 11 |
32 of 36 checks pass | B |
| 10 |
wasatchcounty.gov
Wasatch County, UT U.S. rank 12 |
27 of 31 checks pass | B |
| 11 |
cachecounty.gov
Cache County, UT U.S. rank 13 |
19 of 22 checks pass | B |
| 11 |
piute.gov
Piute County, UT U.S. rank 13 |
25 of 29 checks pass | B |
| 12 |
daggettcounty.gov
Daggett County, UT U.S. rank 15 |
32 of 38 checks pass | B |
| 12 |
uintah.gov
Uintah County, UT U.S. rank 15 |
22 of 26 checks pass | B |
| 13 |
sevier.utah.gov
Sevier County, UT U.S. rank 17 |
24 of 29 checks pass | B |
|
daviscountyutah.gov
Davis County, UT |
Not fully scanned, so not graded. We couldn't fully scan your site because it responded without any page content. Status 995 | - | |
|
washco.utah.gov
Washington County, UT |
Not fully scanned, so not graded. We couldn't fully scan your site because it responded without any page content. Status 995 | - |
About accessibility
Meet WCAG standards so every type of user can use your website.
Why it's important
People with disabilities need equal access to information and services online.
Risks
- People with disabilities cannot use your site.
Guidance
What we use to grade accessibility:
Standards
- [accesskey] values are unique
- [aria-*] attributes match their roles
- Uses ARIA roles only on compatible elements
- button, link, and menuitem elements have accessible names
- ARIA attributes are used as specified for the element's role
- Deprecated ARIA roles were not used
- Elements with role="dialog" or role="alertdialog" have accessible names
- [aria-hidden="true"] is not present on the document <body>
- [aria-hidden="true"] elements do not contain focusable descendents
- ARIA input fields have accessible names
- ARIA meter elements have accessible names
- ARIA progressbar elements have accessible names
- Elements use only permitted ARIA attributes
- [role]s have all required [aria-*] attributes
- Elements with an ARIA [role] that require children to contain a specific [role] have all required children
- [role]s are contained by their required parent element
- [role] values are valid
- Elements with the role=text attribute do not have focusable descendents
- ARIA toggle fields have accessible names
- ARIA tooltip elements have accessible names
- ARIA treeitem elements have accessible names
- [aria-*] attributes have valid values
- [aria-*] attributes are valid and not misspelled
- Buttons have an accessible name
- The page contains a heading, skip link, or landmark region
- Background and foreground colors have a sufficient contrast ratio
- <dl>'s contain only properly-ordered <dt> and <dd> groups, <script>, <template> or <div> elements
- Definition list items are wrapped in <dl> elements
- Document has a <title> element
- ARIA IDs are unique
- No form fields have multiple labels
- <frame> or <iframe> elements have a title
- Heading elements appear in a sequentially-descending order
- <html> element has a [lang] attribute
- <html> element has a valid value for its [lang] attribute
- <html> element has an [xml:lang] attribute with the same base language as the [lang] attribute
- Image elements have [alt] attributes
- Image elements do not have [alt] attributes that are redundant text
- Input buttons have discernible text
- <input type="image"> elements have [alt] text
- Form elements have associated labels
- Links are distinguishable without relying on color
- Links have a discernible name
- Lists contain only <li> elements and script supporting elements (<script> and <template>)
- List items (<li>) are contained within <ul>, <ol> or <menu> parent elements
- The document does not use <meta http-equiv="refresh">
- [user-scalable="no"] is not used in the <meta name="viewport"> element and the [maximum-scale] attribute is not less than 5
- <object> elements have alternate text
- Select elements have associated label elements
- Skip links are focusable
- No element has a [tabindex] value greater than 0
- Tables have different content in the summary attribute and <caption>
- Touch targets have sufficient size and spacing
- Cells in a <table> element that use the [headers] attribute refer to table cells within the same table
- <th> elements and elements with [role="columnheader"/"rowheader"] have data cells they describe
- [lang] attributes have a valid value
- <video> elements contain a <track> element with [kind="captions"]
- All heading elements contain content
- Identical links have the same purpose
- Document has a main landmark
- Elements with visible text labels have matching accessible names
- Tables use <caption> instead of cells with the [colspan] attribute to indicate a caption
- <td> elements in a large <table> have one or more table headers
- Image aspect ratio
- Valid doctype
- Character encoding
Grades/scores
ScanGov
About this data
ScanGov scans the homepage of each county government site on our county list in Utah. Scores come from the checks listed on standards.scangov.org. Sites were scanned between 8/24/2026 and 9/17/2026; each site's report shows its own scan date. A site counts as fully scanned when its homepage returned successfully and sent the scanner its page content. Averages, grade shares, failure rates, and ranks use fully scanned sites only. We weren't able to fully scan 2 sites because they did not respond, blocked the scanner, or returned no page content. They appear in the table without grades, each with its scan status, and are left out of every figure. Grades follow the ScanGov grade scale, and rank follows the ScanGov ranking method. The full dataset, including every county's raw results, is published in the ScanGov data repository.