Plan accessibility with a verifiable scope
People should be able to understand information and complete important tasks using different forms of assistance. This requires accessible technology and content. A useful enquiry separates evaluation, fixes and re-evaluation, stating the target standard and limits of the evidence.
Clarify the standard and context
Accessibility concerns using your digital services, not just their appearance. Agree the standard version and level, for example WCAG 2.2 AA. For the Swiss Federal Administration, eCH-0059 version 3 refers to WCAG 2.1 AA. Other bodies and contracts need separate assessment. For the EU market, additional duties depend on the covered product or service, country and applicable exceptions.
Inventory pages, documents and complete journeys
A homepage does not represent a whole shop, portal or app. Inventory page types, languages, forms and signed-in states. A multi-step journey needs all required steps considered. Documents, video and embedded third-party components need their own attention. Report sampling limits explicitly; a sample does not automatically establish whole-service conformance.
| Area | Agree the scope |
|---|---|
| Website / app | Page types, states and complete journeys |
| Documents | Structure, reading order and forms |
| Media / embeds | Alternatives and responsibility for changes |
Combine automated and manual checks
Automated tools can find certain defects quickly but cannot judge everything. Add keyboard, magnification and assistive technology testing for important tasks. Check reachable controls, understandable labels and useful error messages. People with disabilities can reveal further usability barriers. A green scan or high score is not complete evidence of conformance.
Include content and publishing
Technical fixes alone do not keep new content accessible. Address understandable text, meaningful headings and suitable image and media alternatives. Documents must remain usable too. Define who creates and reviews publications. An accessible template helps only when editors use it correctly; later content changes can introduce new barriers.
Turn findings into concrete fixes
A useful report identifies the location, affected behaviour and reproducible test steps. Prioritise barriers in important tasks and separate technical changes from editorial work. Clarify responsibility for third-party modules and the current platform. After fixing an issue, recheck the function and neighbouring journeys; simply closing a task does not replace verification.
Agree evidence with explicit limits
Evidence should identify the version, target standard, tested scope, methods and unresolved findings. An accessibility statement and feedback channel may also be required and should reflect the actual position. An audit is not automatically certification or legal clearance. Agree which updates trigger re-evaluation and who handles feedback after the project.
Compare evaluation, fixes and re-evaluation separately
Effort depends on components, journeys, documents and languages. Page count alone is not enough to price the work. Clarify sampling, manual tests, advice, reporting and included fixes. Document remediation, user testing, training and re-evaluation may be separate items. Compare equivalent services; blanket prices or guaranteed conformance without examining the product are unhelpful.
| Work package | State in the quote |
|---|---|
| Evaluation | Scope, standard, methods and report |
| Fixes | Technology, content and external ownership |
| Re-evaluation / operation | Repeat checks, training and feedback |
Checklist and procedure before commissioning
Identify the website, app or documents, important tasks, languages and known requirements. State existing reports and whether evaluation or fixes are needed without sending credentials or confidential content. Then agree scope and targets, evaluate, prioritise findings, implement fixes and document re-evaluation. Record ownership, approval and how later changes will be handled.
Frequently asked questions
Is an automated scan enough?
No. Tools assist evaluation; important aspects need human judgement and suitable usability tests.
Is WCAG 2.2 legally required everywhere?
No. Version and duties depend on the organisation, contract, country and offering. Assess Swiss and foreign requirements separately.
Does a tested homepage prove the whole site?
No. Page types, states and complete journeys must be part of the agreed scope.
Are PDF files and video included?
Only if agreed. Scope, remediation and re-evaluation should be described separately.
Is certification automatic?
No. Reporting, conformance claims and certification are different services requiring explicit agreement.
Must I know the technical faults?
No. Describe the product, tasks and known requirements. Professional assessment can form part of the assignment.
