Accessibility in Government Digital Services

Conformance is not the goal; usability is

A service can satisfy a checklist and still be unusable with a screen reader or keyboard. Conformance criteria are a floor that catches the most common exclusions; the objective is that a person can complete the task.

For government services this distinction matters more than in commercial contexts, because the affected person usually has no alternative provider.

Where issues actually originate

In our experience the majority of findings trace to a small number of recurring decisions.

• Custom interactive widgets built from generic elements instead of native controls.
• Form fields without programmatically associated labels or error messaging.
• Focus that is lost, trapped, or invisible after a dialog or route change.
• Status changes announced visually but not to assistive technology.
• Color used as the only signal for state, error, or required fields.
• Text and interface contrast below required ratios in secondary content.

Testing that fits a delivery cadence

Automated scanning catches roughly a third of issues and belongs in the pipeline. The remainder requires keyboard-only walkthroughs of primary tasks and screen reader verification of forms, tables, and dynamic updates. Both fit inside a sprint when they are scheduled as acceptance criteria rather than as a phase.

Documenting the result

An accessibility conformance report is more credible when it records the testing method, assistive technology versions, and known exceptions with remediation timelines. Overstated claims are discovered quickly and damage program credibility.