evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Schweizer Accessibility-Studie — Two Decades of Independent Swiss Digital Accessibility Measurement

Switzerland · Zürich · See the Switzerland profile · See the Zürich profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 23% 92/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Switzerland sits outside the EU Web Accessibility Directive, so a disability foundation runs the country's only longitudinal independent accessibility measurement. Its 2023 wave found just 20% of tested Swiss apps accessible and more than 60% not sufficiently accessible.

20%
Apps found accessible to people with a disability (2023)
>60%
Apps not sufficiently accessible (2023)
33%
Multimedia-alternatives compliance (worst criterion) (2023)
45% vs 79%
Swiss vs US app compatibility with user agents (2023)
Schweizer Accessibility-Studie — Two Decades of Independent Swiss Digital Accessibility Measurement

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
«Zugang für alle» – Schweizerische Stiftung zur behindertengerechten Technologienutzung (Access for All Foundation)
Period
2004–present (six study waves; latest published 2023)
Region (NUTS)
CH04
Keywords
web accessibility, mobile apps, disability, civil society, benchmarking

Context

Switzerland sits outside the EU Web Accessibility Directive, so «Zugang für alle»'s studies (published since 2004; 2023 is the sixth wave) are effectively the country's substitute for regulator-run accessibility measurement.

Activities

The 2023 wave tested mobile apps against WCAG 2.1 AA adapted for mobile, on iOS and Android, using three to six task scenarios per app plus a common settings scenario, combining expert audit with feedback from users with disabilities.

Results

Only 20% of tested apps were accessible to people with a disability, and more than 60% were not sufficiently accessible. Consistency/predictability scored best (98% average compliance); multimedia alternatives scored worst (33%). Swiss apps averaged 45% on user-agent compatibility versus 79% for US apps in the sample.

Conclusions

The method changed substantially between waves (websites, then online shops, then apps), so the six editions are not a single comparable time series; the study's sponsors include SBB and Swiss Post, a disclosed conflict-of-interest risk, though the foundation itself downplays the league-table framing.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
«Zugang für alle» — Schweizerische Stiftung zur behindertengerechten Technologienutzung

Conditions for success

  • independent of the organisations it assesses
  • combines expert audit with feedback from users with disabilities

Common failure modes

  • method changed between waves so results are not a single comparable time series
  • disclosed sponsor conflict of interest (SBB, Swiss Post)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

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