Great Midwest Athletic Conference: usability rankings

Usability scores, grades, and the most common failures for 12 Great Midwest Athletic Conference member websites, from ScanGov homepage scans.

  • Sites: 12
  • Last scan: 11/8/2026

Members of the Great Midwest Athletic Conference (NCAA Division II), from the NCAA membership directory. Conferences change membership every year; this list follows the directory's current academic year.

C 75

Average usability score of 11 fully scanned Great Midwest Athletic Conference member sites

7th

of 96 conferences, ranked by average usability score

11 of 12

Great midwest athletic conference member sites fully scanned. We couldn't fully scan 1, so they're listed without grades

D 68

Average usability score of all 2,687 fully scanned education sites

How Great Midwest Athletic Conference usability scores are distributed

Smoothed distribution of the 11 fully scanned Great Midwest Athletic Conference member sites, score 0 to 100. Height shows how many sites score near each value.

Distribution of 11 scores. The data table lists counts by score range.

  • Great Midwest Athletic Conference average
  • All education average
View the data table
How Great Midwest Athletic Conference usability scores are distributed
Score rangeSites
0 to 90
10 to 190
20 to 290
30 to 390
40 to 491
50 to 592
60 to 690
70 to 790
80 to 897
90 to 1001

Great Midwest Athletic Conference by usability grade, compared with all education sites

Share of fully scanned sites in each grade band. Great Midwest Athletic Conference: 11 sites. All education: 2687 sites.

  1. Great Midwest Athletic ConferenceA (90 to 100): 9% (1 sites)B to C (70 to 89): 64% (7 sites)D to F (below 70): 27% (3 sites)
  2. All education sitesA (90 to 100): 11% (289 sites)B to C (70 to 89): 42% (1,124 sites)D to F (below 70): 47% (1,274 sites)
  • A (90 to 100)
  • B to C (70 to 89)
  • D to F (below 70)
View the data table
Great Midwest Athletic Conference by usability grade, compared with all education sites
GroupA (90 to 100)B to C (70 to 89)D to F (below 70)
Great Midwest Athletic Conference9% (1)64% (7)27% (3)
All education sites11% (289)42% (1,124)47% (1,274)

Top 3 Great Midwest Athletic Conference member sites by usability score

#1 in Great Midwest Athletic Conference · U.S. education rank 2

Lake Erie College

A 93 usability

  • Accessibility A
  • Botability A
  • Security A
  • Usability A
  • Readability A

#2 in Great Midwest Athletic Conference · U.S. education rank 4

The University of Findlay

B 87 usability

  • Accessibility A
  • Botability A
  • Security B
  • Usability B
  • Readability F

#2 in Great Midwest Athletic Conference · U.S. education rank 4

Thomas More University

B 87 usability

  • Accessibility B
  • Botability A
  • Security B
  • Usability B
  • Readability A

Most common usability failures among Great Midwest Athletic Conference member sites

Share of the 11 fully scanned Great Midwest Athletic Conference member sites failing each check. A site can fail more than one check. Each check links to the sites failing it, or to its standard when we have no list yet.

  1. Open Graph image alt91% (10 of 11 sites)
  2. Open Graph image45% (5 of 11 sites)
  3. Time to First Byte (TTFB)36% (4 of 11 sites)
  4. Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS)36% (4 of 11 sites)
  5. Open Graph site name36% (4 of 11 sites)
View the data table
Most common usability failures among Great Midwest Athletic Conference member sites
CheckShare failingSites failing
Open Graph image alt91%10
Open Graph image45%5
Time to First Byte (TTFB)36%4
Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS)36%4
Open Graph site name36%4

What each check means

  • Open Graph image alt. The social media preview image has alt text for screen readers. Screen readers cannot describe shared images.
  • Open Graph image. The page has a preview image for social media cards. Shared links have no image on social media.
  • Time to First Byte (TTFB). The server sends the first byte of content within 0.8 seconds. Slow server delays everything on your page.
  • Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS). Page content stays in place as the page loads. Users click wrong buttons by mistake.
  • Open Graph site name. The site has a name for social media and browser display. Site name missing in social media shares.

Every education site with one problem

Great Midwest Athletic Conference members by usability score

Great Midwest Athletic Conference members ranked by usability score
Rank Site Checks passed Grade
1 lec.edu
Lake Erie College U.S. rank 2
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 findlay.edu
The University of Findlay U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 thomasmore.edu
Thomas More University U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 tiffin.edu
Tiffin University U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 ursuline.edu
Ursuline College U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
3 cedarville.edu
Cedarville University U.S. rank 9
13 of 16 checks pass B
3 hillsdale.edu
Hillsdale College U.S. rank 9
13 of 16 checks pass B
3 kwc.edu
Kentucky Wesleyan College U.S. rank 9
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 ashland.edu
Ashland University U.S. rank 25
8 of 16 checks pass F
4 ohiodominican.edu
Ohio Dominican University U.S. rank 25
8 of 16 checks pass F
5 walsh.edu
Walsh University U.S. rank 27
7 of 16 checks pass F
northwood.edu
Northwood University
Not fully scanned, so not graded. We didn't scan your site because its robots.txt asked us not to. Status 998 -

About this data

ScanGov scans the homepage of each college and university site on our higher education list. Scores come from the checks in the ScanGov standards. Sites were scanned between 11/7/2026 and 11/8/2026. Each site's report shows its own scan date. A site counts as fully scanned when its homepage loaded and sent us its page content. Averages, grade shares, failure rates, and ranks use fully scanned sites only. We could not fully scan 1 sites. They did not respond, blocked the scanner, or sent no page content. They appear in the table without grades, with their scan status, and are left out of every figure. Grades follow the ScanGov grade scale. Rank follows the ScanGov ranking method. The full dataset, with every county's raw results, is in the ScanGov data repository.

Plans Demo