evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

VARAM's 2024 Accessibility Audit — Zero of 132 Latvian Public-Sector Websites Fully Compliant

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

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

VARAM's 2022–2024 audit shortlisted 719 public-sector sites; expert review of 132 found none fully met all 11 accessibility criteria — 90% lacked image alt text and 88% failed the 'Papers' criterion — though sign-language non-compliance halved year on year.

0 of 132 expert-reviewed sites
Websites fully compliant with all 11 criteria (2022–2024 cycle)
90 %
Non-compliance with image alt-text criterion (2022–2024 cycle)
88 %
Non-compliance with 'Papers' criterion (2022–2024 cycle)
80 %
Non-compliance with visual-focus tracking (2022–2024 cycle)
719 websites
Candidate websites shortlisted nationwide (2022–2024 cycle)
fell by more than half
Year-on-year change in sign-language non-compliance (year on year, 2022–2024)
VARAM's 2024 Accessibility Audit — Zero of 132 Latvian Public-Sector Websites Fully Compliant

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development (VARAM)
Period
2022–2024
Keywords
digital government, web accessibility, disability inclusion, public sector IT

Context

Under EU Directive 2016/2102, Latvia's Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development (VARAM) ran the 2022–2024 monitoring cycle combining in-depth expert review (17 websites and 8 mobile apps checked against 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria via the WCAG-EM methodology, plus tests with users who have disabilities), a simplified evaluation (132 websites checked by experts against 11 VARAM guideline criteria, cross-checked against 134 self-assessments submitted by the institutions themselves), and automated scanning. An initial list of 719 candidate websites was shortlisted from Latvia's National Open Data Portal before sampling.

Activities

Both expert reviewers and the institutions themselves assessed sites against the same 11 simplified-evaluation criteria, allowing VARAM to compare independent expert findings against self-reported compliance.

Results

None of the 132 expert-reviewed or 134 self-assessed websites met all 11 simplified-evaluation criteria. The worst-performing criteria were the textual alternative to images (90% non-compliant), the 'Papers' criterion (88%), and visual-focus tracking (80%); main navigation (76%) and colour contrast (73%) also failed on most sites. The best-performing criteria were text-size range (83% compliant), basic structure (65%) and page naming (64%). Year on year, non-compliance with sign-language provisions fell by more than half.

Conclusions

VARAM's own report flags that self-assessment data is less reliable than expert findings, and that zero full compliance across two independent evaluation methods points to a systemic gap rather than a sampling artefact.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — 2022–2024 monitoring cycle under EU Web Accessibility Directive 2016/2102, shortlisting 719 candidate sites before sampling.
Staffing & skills
Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development (VARAM)

Conditions for success

  • Dual methodology combining independent expert review with institutional self-assessment for cross-checking
  • Testing that includes users with disabilities, not only automated scanning
  • Transparent per-criterion reporting of compliance rates

Common failure modes

  • Zero of 132–134 assessed websites met all 11 accessibility criteria, indicating a systemic rather than isolated gap
  • VARAM's own report notes self-assessment data is less reliable than expert findings

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