evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Observatorio de Accesibilidad Web — Spain's 15-Year National Monitor of Public-Sector Digital Accessibility

Spain · Madrid · See the Spain profile · See the Madrid profile

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

Spain's national Web Accessibility Observatory has tested public-sector sites since 2010; its 2023 sweep of over 1,500 sites found only 26.95% reaching AA level and 57.35% invalid, with AA compliance falling for a second year.

1,500+
Public-sector websites analysed (2023)
52%
AGE (state administration) AA compliance (2023)
38%
CCAA (autonomous communities) AA compliance (2023)
12%
EELL (local entities) AA compliance (2023)
26.95%
Overall AA-level compliance (2023)
57.35%
Overall invalid-site share (2023)
-3.25pp
Year-over-year change in AA compliance (2022-2023)
Observatorio de Accesibilidad Web — Spain's 15-Year National Monitor of Public-Sector Digital Accessibility

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Observatorio de Accesibilidad Web, Secretaría General de Administración Digital — Ministerio para la Transformación Digital y de la Función Pública
Period
2010–2023 (ongoing)
Region (NUTS)
ES
Keywords
public sector, digital accessibility, e-government, disability rights

Context

Since 2010, Spain's Ministerio para la Transformación Digital y de la Función Pública has run the Observatorio de Accesibilidad Web (OAW), testing public-sector websites and apps against Royal Decree 1112/2018 and the UNE-EN 301549 (WCAG 2.1) standard.

Objectives

To track public-sector digital-accessibility compliance nationally over time and to give individual public bodies a diagnostic roadmap to improve.

Activities

The 2023 simplified-monitoring round analysed more than 1,500 public-sector websites — over 500 more than the 2021/22 round — spanning the State Administration (AGE), Autonomous Communities (CCAA), Local Entities (EELL) and the Judiciary. Each cycle produces an individual diagnostic report and improvement roadmap per site, plus the open-source OAW Tracker self-assessment tool.

Results

AGE sites reached 52% AA-level compliance, versus 38% for CCAA and just 12% for EELL. Across all sites, 26.95% reached AA level, 15.70% reached A level, and 57.35% were rated invalid — AA compliance down 3.25 percentage points and the invalid-site share up 2.69 points versus the previous year.

Conclusions

The European Commission's AccessibleEU centre cites the Observatory's 15-year continuity as a reference model for other member states, even as on-the-ground compliance continues to lag and, on some measures, to worsen — a candid example of sustained measurement outpacing sustained compliance.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — A long-running national testing and reporting programme with an open-source self-assessment tool — moderate ongoing cost given its 15-year continuity, per-site diagnostics and growing sample size (500+ more sites tested in 2023 than in 2021/22).
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Running continuously since 2010; the cited results are from the 2023 monitoring round.
Staffing & skills
Secretaría General de Administración Digital, Ministerio para la Transformación Digital y de la Función Pública

Conditions for success

  • 15 years of institutional continuity across successive governments
  • Per-site individual diagnostic reports and improvement roadmaps, not just an aggregate score
  • An open-source self-assessment tool (OAW Tracker) any public body can use directly

Common failure modes

  • AA compliance fell 3.25 percentage points and the invalid-site share rose 2.69 points in the most recent year measured, showing compliance can regress even under a long-running monitoring regime
  • Local entities (EELL) lag far behind state administration (12% vs 52% AA compliance)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes CERV — Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values

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.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful