evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Ontario's Digital Service Standard — Mandatory Inclusive-Design Cards and Disabled-User Testing

Canada · Toronto · See the Canada profile · See the Toronto profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 55% 72/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2021, Ontario's Digital Service Standard has made testing with disabled people — screen readers, 400% zoom, automated and manual checks — mandatory for every government digital service, backed by public Inclusive Design Cards covering five accessibility themes.

Ontario's Digital Service Standard — Mandatory Inclusive-Design Cards and Disabled-User Testing

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ontario Digital Service, Government of Ontario
Period
2017–2025 (ongoing)
Keywords
digital government, public sector, accessibility policy, UX design

Context

Since January 2021, the Government of Ontario's Digital Service Standard has made accessibility mandatory, not optional, for every digital product and service the government builds. Standard #7, "Make it accessible and inclusive", requires teams to meet WCAG 2.1 level AA and to test directly with people with disabilities.

Objectives

The standard aims to ensure government digital services are genuinely usable by people with disabilities, not just technically compliant, by requiring hands-on testing rather than relying on automated checks alone.

Activities

Standard #7 requires teams to test manually, with an automated checker, with a screen reader, and by zooming to 400%, as well as with users who have lower digital skills or limited connectivity. To support this, Ontario Digital Service publishes free Inclusive Design Cards (first released December 2017, still updated as of August 2025), organised around five themes — empathy-centred design, physical accessibility, audio experiences, visual experiences and cognitive accessibility — downloadable as PDF and Word files from GitHub to help teams design inclusively before a product is built, not just audit it afterwards. The standard was developed by drawing on comparable digital service standards from Canada's Canadian Digital Service, the UK's Government Digital Service and Australia's Digital Transformation Agency, and is corroborated independently by eCampusOntario's own accessibility documentation, which confirms the WCAG 2.1 AA testing requirement and the use of accessibility advisory panels that include people with differing abilities.

Conclusions

Neither Ontario's own site nor independent sources report how many services have actually been tested with disabled users, or what issues that testing has found and fixed. The practice is a well-documented, mandatory policy framework, but its real-world enforcement and outcomes are not independently evidenced.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Implemented by service delivery teams within Ontario Digital Service, Government of Ontario, embedded across ministry digital product teams, Testing draws on accessibility advisory panels that include people with differing abilities, per eCampusOntario's independent documentation

Conditions for success

  • Accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA plus disabled-user testing) is a mandatory standard, not a voluntary guideline, for every government digital service
  • A free, practitioner-facing Inclusive Design Cards toolkit (five themes) lets teams design for accessibility from the outset rather than auditing after launch
  • Modelled on comparable standards from Canada's Canadian Digital Service, the UK's Government Digital Service and Australia's Digital Transformation Agency

Common failure modes

  • No published measure of how many services are actually tested with disabled users or what issues that testing surfaces and fixes, so compliance and real-world enforcement are not independently verifiable

Where it fits

Governance type
provincial government
Scale
regional/provincial
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