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

Top 30% 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.

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

Details

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

Description

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.
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, some targeted problems eased: non-compliance with sign-language provisions fell by more than half.
VARAM's own report flags that self-assessment data, drawn from institutions' own accessibility statements, is less reliable than expert findings — and that zero full compliance across two independent evaluation methods (expert review and self-assessment) points to a systemic gap rather than a sampling artefact.

Read the full analysis: https://www.varam.gov.lv/lv/timeklvietnu-un-mobilo-lietotnu-pieklustamiba-0

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