evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Panama's Law 15 Web-Accessibility Mandate Meets a 14,571-Error Reality Check

Panama · Panama City · See the Panama profile · See the Panama City profile

Top 30% 84/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Panama's 2016 Law 15 requires accessible public-sector websites, but a 2018 University of Panama audit of 46 institutional and corporate sites found 14,571 WCAG 2.0 errors. ANTAI and SENADIS then agreed to fold accessibility checks into monthly transparency monitoring.

Panama's Law 15 Web-Accessibility Mandate Meets a 14,571-Error Reality Check

Details

Promoter
Universidad de Panamá; ANTAI & SENADIS (Panama)
Period
2016–2019
Keywords
e-government, web accessibility, transparency, disability rights

Description

Panama's Law 15 of 2016, published in Gaceta Oficial No. 28046-B on 6 June 2016 as a reform of the 1999 disability equal-opportunity Law 42, established accessibility norms for the websites of public-sector institutions, obligating government bodies to make their online information reachable to persons with disabilities.
In 2018, researchers Cindy Esquivel, Donna Roper and Ángel Ávila at the Universidad de Panamá published an empirical audit in the university's own journal, Centros: Revista Científica Universitaria. Using the TAW evaluation tool against the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, they tested 46 websites — 14 public institutions (28%) and 32 private companies (72%) — and logged 14,571 errors in total. Violations concentrated on the Perceivable principle (media and technology-sector sites showed the highest counts) and on specific success criteria: an 80% failure rate on the 'adaptable' content criterion (1.3) and up to 52% on the robustness/compatibility criterion (4.1) among insurance-sector sites.
In January 2019, Panama's National Transparency and Access to Information Authority (ANTAI) announced an agreement with SENADIS, the national disability secretariat, to progressively add accessibility criteria to ANTAI's existing monthly Transparency Monitoring of institutional websites, and committed to bringing its own site up to those standards first. This is a cautionary case: the only quantified compliance data available is the 2018 academic snapshot showing minimal compliance two years after the law took effect, and no later independent audit was found confirming whether the 2019 monitoring agreement subsequently improved accessibility outcomes.

Read the full analysis: https://revistas.up.ac.pa/index.php/centros/article/view/290

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

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