evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

AgID × CNR-ISTI MAUVE++ — Checking Italy's Self-Declared Accessibility Against a National Automated Crawl

Italy · Rome · See the Italy profile · See the Rome profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 9% 96/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

AgID crawls Italian public administration with CNR's MAUVE++ platform — 4.7m pages, 29,409 sites and 780,152 PDFs in Q4 2024 alone — and publishes how far the results diverge from what public bodies self-declare. Only ~1% of PDFs are correctly structured.

4.7 million+
Web pages crawled (Q4 2024)
29,409
Public-sector sites monitored (Q4 2024)
780,152
PDF files audited (Q4 2024)
~1 %
PDFs correctly structured for accessibility (Q4 2024)
43 %
Self-declared web services conformant (2023)
48,432
Accessibility declarations published since 2020
AgID × CNR-ISTI MAUVE++ — Checking Italy's Self-Declared Accessibility Against a National Automated Crawl

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale (AgID), with CNR-ISTI
Period
2020–2025
Keywords
digital accessibility, e-government, public administration, automated auditing, open research, document accessibility

Context

Public bodies in Italy are required to self-declare the accessibility of their websites and apps each year, but self-declaration alone cannot verify whether services are actually accessible.

Objectives

Check Italy's self-declared public-sector accessibility against an independent, research-grade automated crawl, and publish the divergence between the two rather than reconciling it away.

Activities

AgID (Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale) crawls the Italian public administration at scale using MAUVE++, an automated validation platform developed by CNR-ISTI and extended with AgID, funded as PNRR measure 1.4.2 "Citizen Inclusion". In the September–December 2024 quarter alone the monitoring covered more than 4.7 million web pages, 29,409 sites and 780,152 PDF files, with results published quarterly on AgID's open monitoring portal.

Results

AgID reports that substantially all PDFs analysed present at least one unmet accessibility criterion, with only about 1% correctly structured. For 2023, public bodies self-declared 43% of web services conformant, 56% partially conformant and 1% non-conformant (35%/63%/3% for apps) — a picture AgID's own service head Claudio Celeghin was openly sceptical of, attributing the gap to administrators lacking accessibility expertise. 48,432 declarations had been published since 2020 (46,463 for websites), but only around 43% of institutional sites catalogued in IndicePA had published one at all.

Conclusions

Automated validation detects a subset of WCAG failures and cannot substitute for manual or user testing, so the crawl establishes a floor on the problem, not its full extent; neither instrument alone would support a claim that Italian public services are accessible.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — Funded under PNRR measure 1.4.2 'Citizen Inclusion'; cost driven by maintaining a national automated crawl covering 4.7m+ pages and 780,152 PDFs per quarter.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Institutionalised monitoring 2020–2025, published quarterly.
Staffing & skills
AgID (Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale) monitoring team, CNR-ISTI (Italy's National Research Council) as MAUVE++ platform developer, AgID service head Claudio Celeghin as public analyst/spokesperson

Conditions for success

  • Independent automated crawl run at national scale to check self-declared compliance rather than relying on self-declaration alone
  • Quarterly public publication of results so divergence is inspectable, not reconciled away
  • Legal backing via Decree-Law 179/2012 and the Stanca Law obliging declarations

Common failure modes

  • Automated validation detects only a subset of WCAG failures and cannot substitute for manual or user testing
  • Only around 43% of institutional sites catalogued in IndicePA had published a declaration at all
  • Self-declared conformity (43%) diverges sharply from what the crawl finds, especially for PDFs (~1% correctly structured)

Commonly funded by

Recovery and Resilience Facility (national plans) National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful