evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

TTJA's Three-Year Web Accessibility Monitoring — Estonia's Non-Conformity Rate Falls from 18.9% to 12.44%

Estonia · Tallinn · See the Estonia profile · See the Tallinn profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 31% 84/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Estonia's regulator TTJA ran three annual cycles of EU-mandated web accessibility monitoring across 102–116 public-sector sites. In-depth audits show non-conformity falling from 18.9% (2022) to 12.44% (2024), while simplified-monitoring scores held around 77–79%.

18.9 to 12.44 %
In-depth non-conformity rate (2022 to 2024)
6.46 percentage points
In-depth non-conformity improvement (2022–2024)
5.08 percentage points
Mobile-app non-conformity improvement (2022–2024)
77, 79, 78 %
Simplified-monitoring average score (2022, 2023, 2024)
381 instances (235 unique domains)
Website instances tested (2022–2024)
93 to 100 to 97 %
Highest simplified-monitoring score (2022, 2023, 2024)
TTJA's Three-Year Web Accessibility Monitoring — Estonia's Non-Conformity Rate Falls from 18.9% to 12.44%

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (TTJA)
Period
2022–2024
Keywords
digital government, web accessibility, disability inclusion, public sector IT

Context

Under the EU Web Accessibility Directive (2016/2102), Estonia's Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (TTJA) ran statutory web-accessibility monitoring from 2022 to 2024, testing 381 website instances (235 unique domains) and 23 mobile-app instances (15 unique apps) against EN 301 549 (WCAG 2.1 AA), supported by external contractor Trinidad Wiseman OU.

Activities

Automated scanning used Siteimprove in 2022 and the free tool Salvia from 2023 onward. Simplified monitoring covered a growing sample of public-sector sites (102 in 2022, 116 in 2023 and 2024), alongside manual in-depth review of 15–16 web domains each year.

Results

Simplified-monitoring average scores held near-steady: 77%, 79% and 78% across the three years, with the highest score rising from 93% to 100% to 97%. In-depth monitoring is more telling: average non-conformity fell from 18.9% in 2022 to 16.43% in 2023 and 12.44% in 2024, a 6.46-percentage-point improvement over three years. Mobile-app non-conformity also improved, by 5.08 percentage points.

Conclusions

The report is candid about its limits: the 2022 results used a different scanning tool and are not directly comparable to 2023–24, and a 100% simplified-monitoring score (achieved only once, by Tallinn's Medical Centre website in 2023) means no deficiency was found under the tested automated rules — not that the site is fully accessible to all users.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — External contractor (Trinidad Wiseman OU) supported the audits; automated scanning switched from the commercial Siteimprove tool (2022) to the free Salvia tool (2023 onward), likely reducing recurring costs.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Annual monitoring cycle 2022–2024 under EU Directive 2016/2102; ongoing as a recurring statutory obligation.
Staffing & skills
Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (TTJA), External contractor Trinidad Wiseman OU

Conditions for success

  • Consistent annual statutory cycle mandated by the EU Web Accessibility Directive
  • Combination of automated scanning and manual in-depth review
  • Transparent year-on-year reporting of methodology changes and caveats

Common failure modes

  • 2022 results not directly comparable to 2023–24 due to a change in scanning tool
  • A 100% simplified-monitoring score reflects no deficiency found under tested rules, not full accessibility

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