Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference: usability rankings

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

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

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

B 84

Average usability score of 12 fully scanned Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference member sites

3rd

of 96 conferences, ranked by average usability score

12 of 12

Minnesota intercollegiate athletic conference member sites fully scanned

D 68

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

How Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference usability scores are distributed

Smoothed distribution of the 12 fully scanned Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference member sites, score 0 to 100. Height shows how many sites score near each value.

Distribution of 12 scores. The data table lists counts by score range.

  • Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference average
  • All education average
View the data table
How Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference usability scores are distributed
Score rangeSites
0 to 90
10 to 190
20 to 290
30 to 390
40 to 490
50 to 590
60 to 691
70 to 791
80 to 899
90 to 1001

Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference by usability grade, compared with all education sites

Share of fully scanned sites in each grade band. Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference: 12 sites. All education: 2687 sites.

  1. Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic ConferenceA (90 to 100): 8% (1 sites)B to C (70 to 89): 83% (10 sites)D to F (below 70): 8% (1 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
Minnesota Intercollegiate 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)
Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference8% (1)83% (10)8% (1)
All education sites11% (289)42% (1,124)47% (1,274)

Top 3 Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference member sites by usability score

#1 in Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference · U.S. education rank 2

College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University

A 93 usability

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

#2 in Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference · U.S. education rank 4

Augsburg University

B 87 usability

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

#2 in Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference · U.S. education rank 4

Bethel University

B 87 usability

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

Most common usability failures among Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference member sites

Share of the 12 fully scanned Minnesota Intercollegiate 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 alt92% (11 of 12 sites)
  2. Open Graph image42% (5 of 12 sites)
  3. Time to First Byte (TTFB)25% (3 of 12 sites)
  4. First Contentful Paint (FCP)17% (2 of 12 sites)
  5. Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)17% (2 of 12 sites)
View the data table
Most common usability failures among Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference member sites
CheckShare failingSites failing
Open Graph image alt92%11
Open Graph image42%5
Time to First Byte (TTFB)25%3
First Contentful Paint (FCP)17%2
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)17%2

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.
  • First Contentful Paint (FCP). The page starts displaying content within 1.8 seconds. Users see blank screen and think site is broken.
  • Largest Contentful Paint (LCP). The page's main content loads within 2.5 seconds. Users wait too long and leave your page.

Every education site with one problem

Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference members by usability score

Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference members ranked by usability score
Rank Site Checks passed Grade
1 csbsju.edu
College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University U.S. rank 2
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 augsburg.edu
Augsburg University U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 bethel.edu
Bethel University U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 concordiacollege.edu
Concordia College at Moorhead U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 gustavus.edu
Gustavus Adolphus College U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 macalester.edu
Macalester College U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 stkate.edu
St Catherine University U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
2 css.edu
The College of Saint Scholastica U.S. rank 4
14 of 16 checks pass B
3 hamline.edu
Hamline University U.S. rank 9
13 of 16 checks pass B
3 wp.stolaf.edu
St Olaf College U.S. rank 9
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 carleton.edu
Carleton College U.S. rank 13
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 smumn.edu
Saint Mary's University of Minnesota U.S. rank 17
11 of 16 checks pass D

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. 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