evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Ireland's NDA Web Accessibility Monitoring — Public-Sector Error Rate Nearly Halves in a Year

Ireland · Dublin · See the Ireland profile · See the Dublin profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 30% 88/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Ireland's National Disability Authority audits public-sector websites and apps under the EU Web Accessibility Directive. Between Oct 2023 and Oct 2024 the share of pages with zero detected errors rose from 22.8% to 58.9%, and average errors per site fell from 5,209 to 4,200.

22.8% to 58.9% %
Web pages with zero detected accessibility errors, Oct 2023 vs Oct 2024
5,209 to 4,200
Average errors per site, Oct 2023 vs Oct 2024
46.1% to 55.25%
Average Accessibility Score across simplified-reviewed sites, 2024 vs 2025
232
Simplified Reviews conducted per year
21-23
In-Depth Reviews conducted per year
Ireland's NDA Web Accessibility Monitoring — Public-Sector Error Rate Nearly Halves in a Year

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
National Disability Authority (NDA)
Period
2023-2025
Region (NUTS)
IE06
Keywords
public sector, e-government, disability rights, ICT regulation

Context

Ireland's National Disability Authority (NDA) is the statutory body monitoring public-sector website and app compliance with the EU Web Accessibility Directive (2016/2102), transposed via S.I. 358/2020. Each year it scores a sample of public bodies using the European Commission's simplified and in-depth monitoring methodologies and publishes an Annual Monitoring Report -- the fifth was released in 2025.

Activities

In the 2023-2024 periods the NDA carried out 232 Simplified Reviews, 21-23 In-Depth website Reviews, and 8-11 mobile app reviews per year, issuing individual findings letters to public bodies and escalating persistent non-compliance -- a practice the Authority credits with pushing accessibility onto senior-management agendas. Results are cross-reported to the European Commission's AccessibleEU monitoring centre alongside every other member state.

Results

The share of web pages with zero detected accessibility errors rose from 22.8% in October 2023 to 58.9% in October 2024, while the average number of errors per site fell from 5,209 to 4,200. The average Accessibility Score across simplified-reviewed sites rose from 46.1% in 2024 to 55.25% in 2025.

Conclusions

The gains are real but partial: even after the improvement, more than four in ten sampled pages still carried at least one detectable error, and the rigorous In-Depth review -- which alone captures manual-testing issues like reading order or focus management -- reaches only a few dozen sites a year out of Ireland's several hundred public bodies.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Annual statutory monitoring covering 232 simplified reviews, ~21-23 in-depth website reviews and 8-11 mobile app reviews; cost not itemised in public reporting.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Annual monitoring cycle since the 2020 transposition of the EU directive; the fifth Annual Monitoring Report was published in 2025.
Staffing & skills
National Disability Authority (NDA) monitoring team, Auditors conducting simplified, in-depth and mobile app reviews

Conditions for success

  • Legal mandate under the EU Web Accessibility Directive (transposed via S.I. 358/2020)
  • Individual findings letters to public bodies with escalation for persistent non-compliance
  • Cross-reporting to the EU AccessibleEU centre for year-on-year comparability

Common failure modes

  • In-depth reviews, which alone capture manual-testing issues, reach only a few dozen sites a year out of several hundred public bodies
  • More than four in ten sampled pages still carried at least one detectable error after the improvement

Where it fits

Governance type
national statutory authority implementing an EU directive
Scale
national
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

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