evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

DIGG's 2022–2024 Monitoring of Digital Public Services — Sweden's DOS-Law Accessibility Oversight

Sweden · Sundsvall · See the Sweden profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 31% 84/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Sweden's digital-government agency DIGG reviewed 1,111 public websites and 15 apps in 2022–2024 under the DOS law, finding zero apps rated 'good' on accessibility and most sites still hard to use for many people.

1,111 websites
Websites reviewed (2022-2024)
1,081 websites
Websites under simplified monitoring (2022-2024)
30 websites
Websites under in-depth monitoring (2022-2024)
15 apps
Apps reviewed in depth (2022-2024)
0 apps
Apps rated 'good' on accessibility (2022-2024)
418 websites / 17 apps websites/apps
Websites and apps planned for 2025 review (2025)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Myndigheten för digital förvaltning (DIGG) — Swedish Agency for Digital Government
Period
2022–2024
Keywords
public sector, digital accessibility, e-government, disability rights

Context

Sweden's DOS law transposes the EU Web Accessibility Directive and gives DIGG, the government's digital-administration agency, responsibility for supervising the accessibility of public-sector digital services.

Activities

DIGG's 2022-2024 monitoring report covered 1,111 websites — 1,081 through simplified monitoring and 30 through in-depth monitoring — plus 15 apps reviewed in depth. This fell short of the EU-mandated sampling target, which DIGG attributed partly to long internal processing times.

Results

None of the reviewed apps achieved a 'good' accessibility rating. Recurring faults included missing image descriptions, poor heading structure, inaccessible forms, low colour contrast, unclear link text, keyboard-navigation failures, and missing or incomplete accessibility statements.

Conclusions

A DIGG specialist noted that accessibility work 'often depends on individual champions rather than established institutional processes.' DIGG has committed to reviewing a further 418 websites and 17 apps in 2025, shifting its 2026 focus to schools and regional bodies.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — 2022-2024 monitoring cycle; a further 418 websites and 17 apps planned for 2025; 2026 focus shifts to schools and regional bodies.
Staffing & skills
Myndigheten för digital förvaltning (DIGG), DIGG specialist David Jakobsson

Conditions for success

  • Statutory supervisory mandate under the DOS law transposing the EU Web Accessibility Directive
  • Two-tier sampling methodology (simplified plus in-depth reviews) applied consistently across cycles

Common failure modes

  • Fell short of the EU-mandated sampling target, attributed to long internal processing times
  • Accessibility work often depends on individual champions rather than established institutional processes, per DIGG's own specialist
  • Zero reviewed apps achieved a 'good' rating

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes Digital Europe Programme

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

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.

Similar practices you may find useful