A useful statement records the standard you aim at, what is known not to meet it, how somebody reports a problem, and when it was last reviewed. A statement claiming full conformance is a representation you have to be able to support.

What it is for

Not a legal shield. A statement does not make an inaccessible site compliant, and publishing one does not discharge an obligation.

What it does is give somebody who has hit a barrier a route to a person, and it records that you have thought about the question rather than not.

For public sector procurement it also does practical work, since buyers increasingly ask what standard a supplier's own site meets and a statement is the fastest answer.

The overclaiming problem

The most common mistake and the one that carries risk.

A statement saying the site is fully accessible, or fully conformant with a named standard, is a representation about your own service. If somebody demonstrates it is not, you have published something inaccurate.

Full conformance is also a high bar that few sites of any size actually meet, and meeting it once does not keep it met once content starts being added.

The honest formulations are narrower and stronger. That you aim at a named standard. That you believe the site substantially meets it. That specific known issues exist, listed. That you review it on a stated cycle.

A statement admitting three known problems reads as credible. One claiming perfection reads as untested, because it usually is.

What to include

  1. What you are aiming at, naming the standard and the level.
  2. How the site currently measures against it, in plain terms.
  3. Known issues, specifically, with what you intend to do.
  4. How somebody reports a problem, with more than one route.
  5. How quickly you will respond.
  6. When it was last reviewed, dated.

The third is the one businesses want to omit and the one that makes the rest believable.

The contact route

Worth building properly, since it is the part that actually helps somebody.

Offer more than one channel, because a person unable to use your form is exactly the person who needs to report that. An email address and a phone number, at minimum.

State a response time you can keep. A commitment to reply within a couple of business days that you honour is worth more than a same-day promise you do not.

And route it somewhere a person reads. An accessibility mailbox nobody monitors is worse than no address, because somebody made the effort to write to it.

Known issues, written usefully

Specific rather than general.

Not our site may contain some accessibility issues. Instead: the booking calendar cannot currently be operated by keyboard, and we are replacing it in the first quarter.

Third-party components deserve their own line, since embedded booking tools, chat widgets, maps and payment pages frequently fail and are outside your direct control.

Saying so is honest and it also communicates something useful to a buyer assessing you: you know what is in your site and where it came from.

Where to put it

Linked from the footer of every page, alongside privacy and terms, at a stable address.

Not buried in a legal overlay, and not only reachable from the contact page. Somebody looking for it is frequently already having difficulty.

Plain markup, real headings, and no reliance on anything interactive, since this of all pages should work when everything else does not.

Reviewing it

A statement is a claim with a date on it, and an undated one from three years ago is evidence of neglect rather than diligence.

Attach the review to something recurring: the annual compliance pass, or whenever the site is significantly changed.

What to check each time: whether the listed issues are still true, whether anything added since introduced new ones, and whether the contact route still reaches somebody.

Removing a fixed issue from the list is the satisfying part, and it demonstrates the statement is live rather than decorative.

The proportionate version

For a small business that has done the basics and is not claiming more.

Four short paragraphs: what you aim at, an honest sentence about where you are, what you know is not right, and how to reach a person who will answer.

That is genuinely useful, defensible, and takes half an hour. A longer statement is not better if the extra length is claims rather than specifics.

The prerequisite is knowing your own position, which comes from actually testing rather than assuming, as set out in checking your own site for accessibility problems.

Frequently asked questions

Does an accessibility statement make a site compliant?

No. It does not discharge any obligation. It gives somebody who hits a barrier a route to a person and records that you considered the question.

What is the main risk?

Overclaiming. Saying the site is fully accessible or fully conformant is a representation about your own service that somebody may demonstrate is untrue.

What should it contain?

The standard you aim at, how you currently measure against it, specific known issues, how to report a problem, your response time, and the review date.

Why list known issues?

It is the part that makes the rest believable. A statement admitting three specific problems reads as credible; one claiming perfection reads as untested.

What contact route should it give?

More than one, since a person unable to use your form is exactly who needs to report that. An email address and a phone number, monitored by somebody.

How often should it be reviewed?

On a stated cycle, attached to something recurring. An undated statement from three years ago is evidence of neglect rather than diligence.

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.

Asked what standard your site meets and unable to answer?

We test it, write the honest statement, and list what is actually outstanding.

Start a Conversation