At a glance
Estimate base staff hours from pages and minutes per page, add review overhead, then divide by available team hours per week. The tool rounds working weeks up. Its inputs are editable assumptions, not measured production throughput or a promise about automated scan duration.
200 pages at 8 minutes, 25% review overhead and 20 team hours per week need about 33.33 staff hours across two rounded-up working weeks.
| Step | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Base work | 200 × 8 ÷ 60 | 26.67 hours |
| Review overhead | 26.67 × 25% | 6.67 hours |
| Total work | Base × 1.25 | 33.33 hours |
| Working weeks | Ceiling(33.33 ÷ 20) | 2 |
Scroll sideways to see all columns. Use arrow keys when the table is focused.
Use a pilot to choose minutes per page
Measure actual handling and verification time on representative sources from the intended scope. A mostly text policy, a complex form and a scanned drawing can require different processes. Keep the sample and tasks visible when translating them into a planning assumption.
Minutes per page here describes staff work. It is not website crawling speed, OCR processing latency or an automated remediation guarantee. The tool deliberately does not assign a duration from a sampled complexity label.
- Confirm the selected pages and duplicate rule.
- Include consequential and complex content in the pilot.
- Record what handling and review tasks the rate covers.
Count available project hours, not headcount
Use combined team hours actually available for this project each working week. Two people with ten available hours each give twenty team hours, regardless of their total contracted hours. Holidays, owner feedback and approval queues can extend elapsed time.
The formula is total hours = pages × minutes per page / 60 × (1 + review overhead / 100). Rounded-up working weeks = ceiling(total hours / team hours per week). Display rounding can make separately shown components differ by a small fraction; calculation uses the unrounded values.
Keep dependencies outside the arithmetic
Add source-owner responses, procurement, translation and specialist availability to the actual schedule. If tasks cannot run concurrently, pooled staff hours alone will not describe the critical path. The simple result is a starting capacity estimate.
Track actual time as the pilot and project progress. Update assumptions deliberately rather than presenting the first scenario as an observed benchmark. Retain the previous scope and rate when explaining a revised plan.
- Enter confirmed selected pages.
- Use a pilot-based handling assumption.
- Add a review allowance that matches the acceptance scope.
- Enter available combined weekly hours and inspect the result.
Sources and scope
Methods, worksheets and illustrative examples are DocAccessible editorial contributions. These references support the technical or product details described above. W3C techniques are informative guidance; they are not a certification scheme.
- W3C: evaluating web accessibility
Automated tools and knowledgeable human evaluation serve different roles.
- DocAccessible remediation options
The different output paths and their review requirements.
Written by the DocAccessible team under our editorial policy. Suggest a correction if a source or product detail needs updating.