Accessibility statements that say very little: compliance theatre helps no one


 An accessibility statement should tell people the truth about a service. Too often, it does little more than signal that nobody wants to say where the barriers actually are.

 'An accessibility statement is not proof of accessibility. At its best, it is a public account of what works, what does not, and what you are doing about it'.


 A lot of accessibility statements look reassuring at first glance. They say the organisation is committed. They mention standards. They offer a contact email. Sometimes they even quote regulations. But once you get past the formal wording, many of them tell users very little that is actually useful. They do not clearly explain what parts of a site or service are inaccessible, when it was last tested, who tested it, what standard was used, or when issues will be fixed. That matters because an accessibility statement is not supposed to be a polished badge of intent. It is supposed to help people understand whether they can use the service and what to do if they cannot. GOV.UK’s guidance is clear that public sector bodies must meet accessibility standards, publish an accessibility statement, and review and update that statement regularly.

The regulations behind this are not new. The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 require UK public sector bodies to make websites and apps accessible and to include and maintain an accessibility statement. GOV.UK’s model accessibility statement says the statement should be based on recent testing and should tell users how accessible the service is. The government’s sample statement goes further and explains that some wording is legally required. In other words, this is not meant to be vague brand language. It is a practical accountability document.

Good examples show what that looks like. GOV.UK’s own accessibility statement says the site is partially compliant with WCAG 2.2 AA and lists specific non-compliances and exemptions. GOV.UK Forms gives dates for testing and names the Digital Accessibility Centre as the tester for part of the platform. NI Direct’s accessibility statements similarly explain what service the statement applies to and what is being done to improve access. That kind of specificity matters because it tells users whether the organisation actually knows where the barriers are.

The wider lesson is simple. An accessibility statement is not there to make an organisation look compliant. It is there to make access more possible. If your statement is generic, outdated, copied from a template without real testing behind it, or silent on known issues, then it is not doing its job. Worse, it may be giving false reassurance. W3C guidance says accessibility statements should include a commitment to accessibility, the standard applied, and contact details, and advises including more detail on limitations and what has been done. That is useful because it centres the user, not just the institution. Organisations should treat the statement as one output of real accessibility work, not a substitute for it.


 Pathways to Equity helps organisations review accessibility statements, website and document accessibility, and the wider gap between formal compliance language and real user access.

Sources