evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

TestDevLab's Cross-Baltic WCAG Audit of Telecom Operators — Diagnosing the Accessibility Gap Ahead of the EU Accessibility Act

Latvia · Riga · See the Latvia profile · See the Riga profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 61% 68/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Riga-based QA firm TestDevLab audited four leading Baltic telecom operators against WCAG 2.1 AA ahead of the EU Accessibility Act, finding perceivability issues caused 42.9% of errors — a replicable sector-wide diagnostic model.

42.9%
Errors classed as perceivability issues
28.8%
Errors classed as operability issues
19.9%
Errors classed as robustness issues
8.5%
Errors classed as understandability issues
TestDevLab's Cross-Baltic WCAG Audit of Telecom Operators — Diagnosing the Accessibility Gap Ahead of the EU Accessibility Act

Details

Promoter
TestDevLab
Period
2024
Region (NUTS)
LV00
Keywords
software testing, digital accessibility, telecommunications

Context

TestDevLab, a software QA company headquartered in Riga (founded 2011, now over 500 engineers across 10 offices), published an independent digital accessibility audit of the four leading Baltic telecom operators -- LMT, Tele2, Bite and Telia -- ahead of the European Accessibility Act's June 2025 enforcement deadline.

Results

CPACC-certified accessibility experts assessed each operator's digital channels against WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria using the POUR framework. Perceivability issues accounted for 42.9% of all errors found, operability problems for 28.8%, robustness issues for 19.9%, and understandability gaps for 8.5%.

Conclusions

The audit shows that even large, well-resourced telecom operators serving the majority of the Baltic region's mobile and broadband subscribers fall short of legally mandated accessibility standards. It stopped at diagnosis rather than establishing an ongoing monitoring regime, so its impact depends on whether operators act on the findings before the EAA's enforcement deadline.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Short (< 1 year)

Commonly funded by

Own resources / municipal budget

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