evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Funka's MeAC Studies -- Measuring e-Accessibility Progress Across Europe

Sweden · Stockholm · See the Sweden profile · See the Stockholm profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 24% 92/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Funka, a Stockholm accessibility body founded by Sweden's disability organisations, led the EU-backed MeAC studies (2007-2012) testing 12 sites per country across the EU, Norway, the US, Canada and Australia -- repeatedly finding public-service web accessibility considerably low.

12 sites
Websites tested per country (2007, 2010, 2012 (3 waves))
3 waves (2007, 2010, 2012)
Study waves (2007-2012)

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
Funka (Funka Nu AB)
Period
2007-2012
Keywords
digital accessibility research, ICT standards, disability inclusion, web accessibility

Context

Funka began in the 1990s as a joint initiative of Sweden's disability organisations, became a company in 2000 based in Stockholm, and co-founded the International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP).

Objectives

On assignment for the European Commission, Funka led the web-accessibility strand of the MeAC studies ('Measuring Progress of e-Accessibility in Europe'), alongside Empirica (Germany) and the Work Research Centre (Ireland) covering telecom and TV accessibility.

Activities

The methodology tested a common sample of 12 websites per country -- a government portal, eight further public-service sites, a newspaper, a bank and a railway site -- combining automated tools, manual expert WCAG review and direct testing by users with disabilities, across three waves: MeAC (2007), MeAC2 (2010) and MeAC3 (2012), covering all EU states plus Norway, the US, Canada and Australia.

Results

All three waves reached the same conclusion: public-service website accessibility in Europe was considerably low, with basic requirements such as correctly marked-up headings frequently failing and WCAG 2.0 criteria implemented even less often; no country rated as performing well, and Europe lagged the non-European benchmark countries.

Conclusions

These repeated, methodologically consistent findings fed directly into the policy case for the EU Web Accessibility Directive (2016/2102); the study measured the state and persistence of accessibility rather than attributing improvement to a specific intervention, so its evidence is a rigorous, repeated diagnostic rather than a demonstrated before/after fix.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Cost not itemised in source; commissioned and funded by the European Commission across three waves (2007-2012).
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Three waves over five years: MeAC (2007), MeAC2 (2010), MeAC3 (2012).
Staffing & skills
Funka (Funka Nu AB) -- lead on web-accessibility strand, Empirica (Germany) -- telecom accessibility strand, Work Research Centre (Ireland) -- TV accessibility strand, Users with disabilities engaged directly in testing alongside automated-tool and manual WCAG expert reviewers

Conditions for success

  • Standardised, common sample of 12 websites per country applied consistently across all participating countries
  • Combination of automated tools, manual expert WCAG review and direct testing by users with disabilities
  • Repetition of the same methodology across three waves (2007, 2010, 2012) to track persistence of findings

Common failure modes

  • Study measured the state and persistence of accessibility rather than attributing improvement to a specific intervention -- a diagnostic rather than a before/after impact evaluation

Where it fits

Governance type
EU-commissioned research consortium
Scale
multi-country (EU plus Norway, US, Canada, Australia)
Income level
high-income (lead organisation, Sweden)

Commonly funded by

Digital Europe Programme ESF+ — European Social Fund Plus

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.

Similar practices you may find useful