Evaluating the Accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England

Evaluating the Accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Short Report Evaluating the Accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England Katherine Wharton, Libby Kavanagh-Smith, Chris Douce This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7068344/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Universal Access in the Information Society → Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Digital accessibility is essential to providing all users with equitable access to websites and the services they provide. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the state of accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England following the introduction of the United Kingdom Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (PSBAR) which came into force on 23rd September 2020. An heuristic evaluation was carried out using a subset of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.1 during the first half of 2023. Our data was collected by type of council, namely: Metropolitan District, Unitary Authority, London Borough, District and County. A sample size of 57 websites was selected, with 3 pages being tested on each website. Our results from the data show that councils are not fully complying with legislation; however, the number of issues found on each council website was low. The sample councils’ websites are compliant with roughly 86% of the test points included in our research, thus are meeting the guidelines to some extent. A secondary aim was to explore whether there were any correlations between the number of failures and levels of social deprivation and disability within each council area. Implications for practice and recommendations are shared. WCAG Accessibility PSBAR Heuristic Evaluation WAI manual testing semi-automated testing 1. Introduction The World Health Organisation (WHO) 2011 [1] report indicates that approximately 15% of the global population lives with a disability, with this figure growing as the average life expectancy increases. In the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) [2] was introduced as the first legislation protecting the rights of disabled people [3]. Subsequent amendments required organisations to amend policies, remove physical barriers and make reasonable adjustments in housing, although it does not explicitly mention digital or online content [4]. With technology increasingly replacing physical services it is essential to ensure that digital services are accessible to all. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) [5] created the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) [6] in 1997 [7]. The main goal of this initiative was to “make the internet accessible for people with disabilities” [7]. Part of the work of the WAI, is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). In 1999, the first version of WCAG was released containing fourteen guidelines and checkpoints within them. Each checkpoint was assigned a priority level, 1,2 or 3 and conformance levels of A, AA, and AAA. Conformance level A is achieved by satisfying priority 1 checkpoints, AA satisfies priority 1 and 2 checkpoints and AAA satisfies priority 1, 2 and 3 checkpoints [8]. Version 2.0 of the guidelines introduced four distinct principles identified by the acronym POUR: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust (Caldwell et al, 2008) [9]. In addition, 2.0 sought to address accessibility in a wide range of digital content, rather than only HTML content (Birney, 2020) [10]. With the increase in mobile web use to access online content (Birney, 2020) [10], WCAG 2.1 incorporated this aspect. In 2009, the UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) (CRPD) [11], which, according to the UN (no date) [12], “identifies the rights of persons with disabilities as well as the obligations on States parties to the Convention to promote, protect and ensure those rights”. Article 9 of this convention calls for states to “enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life” and specifies that “information and communications technologies and systems” are included in this [11]. Following this, the Equality Act 2010 [13] was introduced in England, Scotland, and Wales, which combined multiple anti-discrimination laws, including the DDA [2]. This legislation requires that organisations make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities (Section 20) [13], that information is provided in an accessible format (Section 20(6)) [13] and that service providers “must not discriminate against a person requiring the service” (Section 29(1)) [13]. In addition, the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) [14] clarified that “websites provide access to services and goods and may in themselves constitute a service”. WCAG continues to be developed alongside technology to ensure that guidelines remain relevant [15]. At the time of writing, WCAG 2.2 is the most recently released version of WCAG [16]. However, WCAG 2.1 was in use during our research, therefore when WCAG is referred to within this paper, it will be referring to WCAG version 2.1 unless otherwise stated. The European Accessibility Act (EAA) (Directive (EU) 2019/882) came into force in 2019, with the directive needing to be implemented into local legislation by 28 June 2022. The harmonised standard used in this directive is expected to be a new version of ETSI EN 301 549, which has not yet been published; however, the current version of this standard contains and extends WCAG 2.1. The changes in 2.2 add 9 new success criteria and mark the 4.1.1 Parsing success criterion as obsolete and removed [15]. PSBAR [17] is aligned to the standard WCAG 2.2. At the time of writing WCAG 3.0 is currently in development [18]. In the current working draft, “success criteria” have been removed, with each guideline now containing “Foundational Requirements”, “Supplemental Requirements” and “Assertions” [18]. The “Foundational Requirements” aim to test for a basic level of accessibility, similar to WCAG 2.2 level AA. The “Supplemental Requirements” aim for higher levels of conformance and accessibility. WCAG 3.0 aims to focus on easy-to-understand guidelines that focus on user needs and broad technology applicability. WCAG 3.0 will not be backwards compatible like the 2.X 1 versions, but 2.X will still be recognised as a conformance option [18]. This evaluative study assessed the accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England following the introduction of the United Kingdom Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (PSBAR) [17], using a subset of WCAG 2.1 [19]. We will discuss the current state of the literature in the background section and give an overview of our research aims in section 3. Section 4 details our methodology and data collection procedure, with section 5 exploring the results from each of our test points. Finally, we will discuss the implications of our research and potential future research. 2. Background In 2016, the EU Web Accessibility Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/2102) came into force [ 20 ] requiring each member state to implement legislation. As this was before Brexit was finalised, this applied to the UK. In response, the UK developed PSBAR, which became law in 2018. PSBAR requires that the websites and apps of public sector bodies meet accessibility standards and that the body publishes an accessibility statement and provides feedback mechanisms for users. The UK government monitors compliance with the regulations [ 21 , 22 ]. During our research in 2023, these regulations required that websites and mobile apps of UK public sector bodies comply with WCAG 2.1 level AA [ 23 ]. According to Harris (2021) [ 24 ], PSBAR applies to: “Local and parish councils central government departments most NHS organisations most universities and colleges some charities and other non-government organisations” Organisations can claim disproportionate burden, allowing them to balance the burden of making content accessible against the benefit to users of doing so. Organisations cannot claim disproportionate burden due to a lack of knowledge, time or because they do not consider it a priority. Where a claim is made, this must be stated in the organisation’s accessibility statement (Central Digital & Data Office, 2024a) [ 23 ]. There are several papers within the web accessibility literature which highlight the levels of compliance with national and international guidelines. One example of this is the Królak and Zając [ 25 ] paper which discusses the levels of non-compliance in online education platforms, utilising user feedback of a small sample of participants with a variety of disabilities. From the qualitative survey results, they concluded that while functionality is generally improving compared to 2014 levels, Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) still fall short in the WCAG categories of Perceivability and Operability. The legality of web accessibility is also discussed in Laamanen, Ladonlahti, Puupponen et al. [ 26 ], with researchers finding that even with laws in place there are still failures to meet accessibility requirements in higher education institutions (HEIs). Their study focusses on the landing pages of HEIs as they see the most traffic. Data were collected prior to the introduction of a law regarding accessibility and 2.5 months after the introduction of the law. The results showed some improvements in web accessibility. The institutions with good accessibility prior to the law were still good, and the poor accessibility institutions remained poor, suggesting that the law did not induce adequate changes, and that further guidance is needed. The repercussions of legal amendments were also explored in the study of Norwegian Municipality websites by Inal and Torkildsby [ 27 ]. This study offers a comparison to our study, as they discuss the accessibility of municipalities which are similar to county councils. The research demonstrates the changes in accessibility over a three-year period, following changes in legislation, offering an interesting long-term perspective. Using an automated tool to assess accessibility during the study, researchers found that although there were improvements in accessibility following the introduction of laws, there were still issues suggesting that further work is necessary to ensure digital equality. This is consistent with our findings, showing efforts are being made to improve online accessibility, but there is significant room for improvement. Similar findings can be seen in the work of Kous, Kuhar, Pavlinek et al [ 28 ] who assessed the impact of the introduction of the EN 301 549 standard on web accessibility for Slovenian municipality websites. This study includes a large sample of Slovenian websites, with 189 websites being included. While this study is based on EN 301 549 guidelines, the authors explain that the content is largely the same as WCAG, most differences being structural. This early exploration of the impact of EN 301 549 shows a clear correlation between the introduction of the standard and the improvement of government websites, with none of the websites tested being fully compliant in 2017, and a third of the websites becoming fully compliant in 2018. This study highlights the positive impact of legislation on the equality of accessibility for internet users with disabilities. In addition, Paul (2023) [ 29 ] concentrated on e-government websites in India finding that many of the websites do not meet Levels A and AA compliance requirements for WCAG 2.1, thus making the sites difficult to utilise for some users with disabilities. The author [ 29 ] discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic caused a shift of government services from the physical world to online. This study used a sample of 65 websites, making it a similar scale to our research and gained very similar results. Similarly, Kesswani and Kumar [ 30 ] conducted research on the accessibility of government websites. They examined the governmental homepages of a mixture of G7 and BRICS countries, finding that there are flaws with most of the webpages tested regardless of whether the country was categorised as developed or developing. Turning to the importance and significance of methodology, Akram, Ali, Sulaiman et al. [ 31 ] determined that automated testing alone is not appropriate to determine how well websites comply with WCAG guidelines and how accessible they are to users. The researchers found that the automated checkers were only able to identify 11–26% of accessibility errors, with the remaining errors needing human input [ 31 ]. This highlights the need for further manual testing of web accessibility by disabled stakeholders and experts, to ensure that issues are identified, and steps are taken towards resolution. This research also implies that further efforts could be made to create a sophisticated automated system. Healthcare organisations are increasingly utilizing internet and communications technologies to improve how they offer their services. This is highlighted in the Macakoğlu and Peker (2023) [ 32 ] Turkish university hospitals study. This study follows similar methods to our research in that they analysed a sample of 58 web pages, though this study utilised automated testing tools. TAW [ 33 ], The Dead Link Checker tool [ 34 ] and the Google Mobile-Friendly Test (now Lighthouse) [ 35 ] were employed as part of this study, whereas we opted for Chrome browser Developer Tools (Google, no date)[ 36 ], Bookmarklets (Adam, no date)[ 37 ], HeadingsMap Extension (Rumoroso, 2025) [ 38 ] and TPGi Colour Contrast Analyser (The Paciello Group, no date)[ 39 ]. While Macakoğlu and Peker [ 32 ] used more automated testing in their evaluation, whereas we used a combination of manual and semi-automated testing, both studies found that the most common errors were related to non-text content alternatives. As web accessibility is an emerging field of study, there is often a need to build tools to fulfil requirements. This is evidenced by the work of Iannuzzi et al. (2024) [ 40 ] who approach this area of study from an engineering perspective. Their research highlights the need for comprehensive tools that identify accessibility issues, showing real time feedback. There are often people working on websites without a technical background. This suggests that a more inclusive tool with options to explore the various elements that make a website accessible would be beneficial for a variety of stakeholders. There have been several systematic literature reviews (SLR) on web accessibility. Campoverde‑Molina et al. (2020) [ 41 ] have carried out two SLRs in this area, with the first study concluding that the websites tested were not fully compliant with any version of the WCAG guidelines. The authors suggest that web developers make use of the abundance of available automated tools as well as manual evaluation of web accessibility. In their second SLR, Campoverde‑Molina et al. (2023) [ 42 ] concluded that the growing complexity of websites and the WCAG guidelines over time, make compliance with guidelines more difficult; the persistence of errors over time supports this theory. This study found that the most common errors were in the categories of “Text Alternatives, Adaptive, Distinguishable, Keyboard Accessibility, Navigable, Readable, Predictable, Input Assistance and Compatible” ([ 42 ] pp. 165). In our research we gained comparable results in some of these categories, with Checkpoint 2 finding 133 pages with issues in Text Alternatives. Checkpoints 1 and 7 found 187 pages with issues in the Adaptive category, and Checkpoints 2, 6 and 8 found 164 pages with issues in the Distinguishable category. One of the conclusions drawn by Campoverde‑Molina et al. (2023) [ 42 ] is that websites should be created with accessibility considerations from the outset, as this is a common issue with university websites; the authors suggest this may be due to lack of knowledge of, or interest in, the legislations from the web developers. In an official capacity, the UK Government Digital Service (GDS) monitors compliance with the regulations, by selecting a sample of the websites and apps in the scope of the regulations each year [ 23 ]. GDS will use one of 2 testing methodologies when monitoring: simplified testing and detailed testing [ 22 ]. The simplified testing combines automated testing with a small selection of manual tests to test a reduced selection of WCAG criteria and the detailed testing involves testing against all WCAG 2.1 level AA success criteria (Central Digital & Data Office, 2024c) [ 22 ]. The Central Digital & Data Office (CDDO) [ 44 ] publish guidance on performing a basic accessibility check for organisations to assess their own websites. If organisations lack the in-house expertise to perform full accessibility testing, and paying for a third party to audit the content would present a disproportionate burden, they may complete this basic check themselves in place of a full audit. The checks detailed in this guidance can be performed by someone with minimal accessibility experience and test a sub-set of WCAG success criteria. When an organisation is selected for monitoring, the monitoring team at GDS [ 45 ] test the organisation’s website using either the simplified or detailed methodology [ 46 ]. Once this is complete, a report is compiled with the results and sent to the organisation. A report published by the CDDO [ 46 ] noted that roughly 20% of organisations never responded to a monitoring report or subsequent contact. Through monitoring, GDS [ 45 ] identified that organisations with a dedicated website team were more likely to respond to, and plan fixes for, issues in the report. These organisations were often larger organisations and typically also had fewer issues identified. By focusing on councils in England in 2023 this paper contributes to the conversation about the current state of implementation of PSBAR. If the public sector body is monitored and found not to comply, GDS [ 45 ] may refer them to the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) [ 14 ]. Additional resources are provided to organisations including published guidance referenced throughout this paper. If an organisation does not respond to contact from GDS [ 45 ] and the EHRC [ 14 ], the EHRC may continue with enforcement action. This can involve “entering into a binding agreement to comply with the regulations or conducting an investigation into the failure to make reasonable adjustments to ensure website accessibility” [ 46 ]. According to The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 [ 46 ], failure to comply with the regulations is legally interpreted as a failure to make a reasonable adjustment as described in the Equality Act 2010 [ 13 ]. In this instance, measures set out to enforce the Equality Act 2010 [ 13 ] will apply. 3. Research aims Our research aims to address the following research areas in order to evaluate the accessibility of local authority public facing websites: To identify the compliance with PSBAR in this sample and identify any trends indicated by the data collected. To explore a correlation between the number of failures and levels of social deprivation and disability within each council area. 4. Methodology 4.1 Data collection Evaluating websites according to the full scope of WCAG 2.1 level AA, would have required more time and resources than were available during our research. As a result, a subset of WCAG success criteria were tested. The government’s guidance on performing a basic check [ 44 ] and the WebAim Million results [ 47 ] were used to identify key categories where issues are commonly found on websites. Within each of these categories, we identified up to 4 test points and created a question for each test point to identify passes and fails in the data. Table 2 outlines the categories, user groups affected by issues in each category, and the test points used within this research. Where a test point relates directly to WCAG [ 19 ], the success criteria being assessed have been included in brackets. In addition to the test points, the accessibility statements published by councils were assessed. PSBAR requires that public sector bodies “publish an accessibility statement that explains how accessible your website or mobile app is” [ 23 ]. This accessibility statement should identify conformance with WCAG, where components are not accessible and whether the organisation is claiming disproportionate burden [ 21 ]. It is important to record these, as there may be a claim of disproportionate burden related to a specific area of our testing. We found it was necessary to use a variety of semi-automated tools, along with manual assessment to reduce testing time and ensure accuracy in our results. An investigation into automated testing tools was carried out by the GDS accessibility team in 2017 [ 48 ]. This investigation tested a page, with 143 deliberately introduced accessibility issues, with 13 different automated testing tools. The best automated tool found only 40% of the issues, with the worst tool finding only 13% of the issues [ 48 ]. 29% of the issues were not identified by any tool, meaning even using multiple automated testing tools would not be sufficient to assess accessibility properly [ 48 ]. As a result, the industry recommends that manual testing is always performed when assessing accessibility. To guide our testing, we built an app and database to effectively collect and analyse data in our research; allowing councils to be requested, which the tool then selected from the list that had not yet been tested. When undertaking the testing, the tool was implemented to keep track of and record the results of each checkpoint and test, along with any relevant notes for that test. Similar methods were used by Londoño-Rojas, Tabares-Morales & Duque-Méndez [ 43 ] who also focused on hybrid accessibility evaluation. To allow for testing of different types of content, 3 pages were assessed on each website, the homepage, a content page and a form page. The homepage is specifically listed as a page to test by the government [ 44 ]. The other 2-page types offered variation in the type of content being tested including, but not limited to, form elements, headings and links. These page types were chosen as they generally represent the types of content that the government suggest are necessary in a basic check [ 44 ]. In order to select council websites, a sample needed to be identified. To practically contain the scope of this research, we limited our investigation to English councils. A record of all councils in England was sourced [ 49 ], which identified that, at the time of our research, there were 333 councils in England. Our research applied a stratified, proportionate, random sampling technique [ 50 ]. This allowed for grouping of the total population by type of council, these strata are: Metropolitan District, Unitary Authority, London Borough, District and County. This was necessary as the distinct types of councils may have different budget or resource availability and therefore the accessibility may vary by type of council. This allowed for evaluation of the accessibility of different types of council separately as well as overall. To give a confidence level of 90% with a margin of error of +/-10%, we chose to test a sample size of 57 websites, distributed proportionately across the strata defined above. To test 3 pages on each site, 171 pages would be tested, with 57 accessibility statements being reviewed. 4.2 Data collection procedure Our custom app was used to select each council to test. In turn, test results were recorded and saved to a local database, enabling our data to be later queried and analysed. Table 2 Categories and test points Category Disability category affected Impact on users Test points 1. Headings Vision Screen reader users use headings to help them understand the structure of a page. Incorrect heading structure can make this harder for users. 1.1 Are headings marked up as such? (1.3.1) 1.2 Does the heading structure match the visual structure? (1.3.1) 1.3 Plain text is not marked up as a heading inappropriately. (1.3.1) Cognitive Headings help users scan a page to find the section they are looking for. Browser extensions, such as HeadingsMap, are sometimes used by these users to help them understand the structure of the page. 2. Images Vision Screen reader users rely on text alternatives for images to understand the visual content. Currently screen readers are unable to accurately describe the content of an image to users independently. Images of text cannot be reliably enlarged with pixelation, making perceiving the text in these images harder for low-vision users. 2.1 Do all images have an alt attribute? (1.1.1) 2.2 Do informative and functional images have appropriate alternative text? (1.1.1) 2.3 Decorative images do not have redundant alternative text. (1.1.1) 2.4 There are no images of text. (1.4.5) Cognitive Having text-based representations of images can help some users process the content of important images. Images of text cannot have the letter, word, and line spacing adjusted dynamically by the user, which some users may find helps them to read content. 3. Keyboard Navigation Vision Screen readers are primarily controlled using the keyboard as users may not be able to perceive the mouse cursor. If elements are not keyboard operable, screen reader users may also struggle to operate them. 3.1 Can all elements be operated using a keyboard? (2.1.1) 3.2 Do all elements have visible focus indication? (2.4.7) 3.3 Is the focus order logical? (2.4.3) 3.4 Focus is not trapped inappropriately. (2.1.2) Motor Users with motor impairments may use either the keyboard “Tab” key and/or voice recognition software to access elements on the page, both of which require elements to be keyboard operable. Keyboard-only users also need to know where they are on the page, which can be difficult when elements have no visible focus indicator. 4. Skip links Vision Skip links allow users to skip over repeated content on a page. Broken or non-existent skip links could mean users have to navigate through lengthy navigation menus repeatedly. 4.1 Is there a skip link present? 4.2 Does the skip link become visible on focus? 4.3 Does the skip link work properly? Motor Similarly, skip links allow keyboard-only users to skip over repeated components. 5. Page titles Vision Page titles provide users with a summary of the page and can help users confirm they are on the page they expect to be on. If page titles are not accurate, users may need to take additional time to navigate through the page to confirm they are where they expected to be. 5.1 Does the page have a page title? (2.4.2) 5.2 Is the page title accurate? (2.4.2) Cognitive Page titles can help users with memory impairments remind themselves where they are in a process or website and what they were doing. 6. Colour Vision Poor text contrast and using colour alone to communicate information can disproportionately impact low-vision and colour-blind users, as they may struggle to perceive the elements on the page. 6.1 There are no text colour contrast failures (1.4.3) 6.2 No content relies on colour alone (1.4.1) 7. Form components Vision Controls with no accessible name may mean some users are unable to perceive what that control does. Form fields missing associations with labels and errors means some users may miss important information they need to correctly complete the form field. 7.1 Do all elements have an accessible name? (4.1.2) 7.2 Are labels associated with input fields? (1.3.1) 7.3 Are errors associated with input fields? (1.3.1) 7.4 Are errors described in text? (3.3.1) Motor Controls missing accessible names can make it particularly hard for voice recognition users to use those controls, as the software does not respond as the user might expect. Cognitive Users with cognitive impairments might find it particularly challenging to remediate errors when they are not described in text due to the increased cognitive load required to understand and work out what is wrong. 8. Zoom and reflow Vision Low-vision users may need to zoom into a page significantly to perceive the content. If this causes important content or functionality to overflow, overlap, or disappear then users may be unable to use the page or perceive the content. 8.1 There is no lost content at 400% zoom. (1.4.10) 8.2 There is no lost functionality at 400% zoom. (1.4.10) 8.3 Users don’t need to scroll in multiple directions at 400% zoom. (1.4.10) Motor Some users with motor impairments may use smaller devices to access websites, such as mounting an iPad on a power chair. If pages do not reflow appropriately for smaller viewports, they can become difficult to use or content or functionality can be lost. 9. Multimedia Hearing Audio content with no captions or transcript can be difficult or impossible to perceive for some users. 9.1 Can moving content be paused, stopped, or hidden? (2.2.2) 9.2 Do videos have audio description, where applicable? (1.2.3/1.2.5) 9.3 Do videos have captions, where applicable? (1.2.2) 9.4 Does audio content have a transcript? (1.2.1) Vision Video content with no audio description of any sort can be difficult or impossible for some users to perceive. Cognitive Some users may struggle to keep their attention focussed on video or audio content. Some users may struggle to process audio or video content. Some users may find moving or changing content distracting or overwhelming. 4.2.1 Headings To test headings on each page a combination of the Paul J Adam Headings bookmarklet [ 37 ], the HeadingsMap Chrome browser extension [ 38 ] and the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [ 36 ] was used. The bookmarklet displayed annotations on the page next to the headings that were visually present. The browser extension allowed all heading elements on the page to be seen, even if they were visually hidden. The combination of these tools allowed for assessment of whether text that titles content was marked up as a heading, that there was no text that was inappropriately marked up as a heading when it did not title content and that the heading structure on the page matched the visual structure accurately. Where needed, Developer Tools [ 36 ] were employed to inspect the code of the website to check any heading elements. 4.2.2 Images To test the images on each page a combination of the Paul J Adam Images bookmarklet [ 37 ] and the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [ 36 ] were used. The bookmarklet displayed annotations next to the images on the page. The bookmarklet was used to check that images had alt attributes with appropriate alternative text, based on the use of the image on the page. If an image did not present any unique or meaningful information, it was classed as decorative and should have been hidden from assistive technology, most commonly achieved using a null alt attribute [ 51 ]. If the image provided unique information to the page, it was classed as informative and should have a text alternative that described the content of the image. If the image was used for functionality, such as an image link, the alternative text should have been descriptive of the functionality. The Developer Tools were used to check any instances where the bookmarklet did not work, such as when images were added to the page without using the element. A visual check was used to assess if the images contained text that was not present on the page as text that can be styled and accessed by assistive technology. 4.2.3 Keyboard Navigation To test the keyboard navigation, the Tab key was used to navigate through the page. This enabled a check to ensure that all elements received visible focus in a logical order and responded to keyboard input, such as responding to the Space and Enter keys. It was noted if there was anywhere that keyboard focus was trapped and could not be moved away from. 4.2.4 Skip Links To test the skip links, we navigated to the top of the page using the keyboard. We checked that the link was present, became visible when receiving focus and responded appropriately when activated by moving both visual and keyboard focus down the page. 4.2.5 Page Titles To test the page title, the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [ 36 ] were used to view the title element. A visual check was used to verify that the text used in the element reflected the content and purpose of the page. 4.2.6 Colour To test the colour used on the page the TPGi Colour Contrast Analyser [ 39 ] and the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [ 36 ] were used. A visual check identified where there was text on the page that may fail the contrast requirements of 4.5:1 contrast ratio for regular sized text and 3:1 for large text. Where text was identified as potentially failing, Developer Tools were used to retrieve the colour value, such as the hexidecimal value. These values were then used in the Contrast Analyser to check the contrast ratio between the colour of the text and the background. Finally, a check was carried out to assess if there were instances where colour is the only method used to communicate information on the page. 4.2.7 Form Components To test form components, the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [ 36 ] were used along with visual checks. Visual checks were used to identify where errors are not described in text. For accessible names, labels and errors being associated with input fields, the Developer Tools were used to check that these were provided and associated correctly. 4.2.8 Zoom and Reflow To check zoom and reflow, the Chrome Browser and Chrome Browser Developer Tools [ 36 ] were used. These tools allowed for changing of the viewport of the page to 320 x 256 px. This is the viewport used to assess the reflow success criterion. At this viewport, we checked that no content or functionality was lost and that users did not need to scroll in multiple directions to view content. 4.2.9 Multimedia To test multimedia, we checked any visual and audio multimedia content had appropriate alternatives, including captions, transcripts and audio description. We also visually checked that there was no automatically moving content that could not be stopped by the user. 5. Results Our analysis focused on several distinct test categories (see Table 3 ), which gave an indication of how well individual councils were meeting the regulations, as well as across council types. 5.1 Compliance with PSBAR The total failure count recorded during testing, excluding accessibility statements, was 679 failures. The total failure count possible on a single page is 29, 171 pages were tested, therefore the total possible failure count was 4,959. 679 failures represent a 13.7% failure rate. The full list of the number of failures in each category is given in Table 3 below. The category with the most failures was ‘Images,’ with 161 failures recorded. The category with the fewest failures was ‘Page Titles’ with only 2 failures. Due to the variation in the number of test points in each category, the category with the highest proportion of failures was ‘Headings,’ which had 129 failures. This represented a 25.1% failure rate, whereas the Images category had a failure rate of 23.5%. Table 3 Number of failures in each category Test Category Number of failures Percentage failed Headings 129 25.1% Images 161 23.5% Keyboard 99 14.5% Skip Links 46 9% Page Titles 2 0.6% Colour 82 24% Forms 87 12.7% Zoom and Reflow 63 12.3% Multimedia 10 1.5% Results for each test point can be found in Table 4 below. The test points are referred to by their numbers, which are detailed in Table 2 above. Table 4 Test point results Test point Pages failing this test Pages failing only this test 1.1 Headings are marked up 59 35 1.2 Structure is correct 46 24 1.3 Plain text does not use heading semantics 26 13 2.1 Images have no alt attribute 5 0 2.2 Informative and functional images have bad alternatives 79 48 2.3 Decorative images have redundant alternatives 49 19 2.4 Images of text present 19 1 3.1 Elements not keyboard operable 23 11 3.2 No focus indication 28 13 3.3 Illogical focus order 48 28 3.4 Keyboard trap present 0 0 4.1 Skip link not present 9 0 4.2 Skip link not visible on focus 23 13 4.3 Skip link does not work 14 4 5.1 No page title 0 0 5.2 Page title not accurate 2 2 6.1 Text fails contrast test 45 31 6.2 Content relies on colour alone 37 23 7.1 Elements missing accessible name 25 19 7.2 Labels not associated with input fields 20 10 7.3 Errors not associated with input fields 36 26 7.4 Errors not described in text 6 4 8.1 Content lost at 400% 33 26 8.2 Functionality lost at 400% 20 14 8.3 2-axis scrolling needed at 400% 10 9 9.1 Content cannot be paused, stopped, or hidden 6 6 9.2 Video has no audio description 4 4 9.3 Video has no captions 0 0 9.4 Audio has no transcript 0 0 The total failure count on homepages was 321, making the failure rate 19.4%. For content pages, the total failure count was 133, making the failure rate 8%. Finally, for form pages, the total failure count was 225, making the failure rate 13.6%. The total failure count on District councils was 360, making the failure rate 13.3%. For Metropolitan District councils, the total failure count was 81, making the failure rate 15.5%. For Unitary Authorities, the total failure count was 122, making the failure rate 14%. For London Boroughs, the total failure count was 73, making the failure rate 14%. Finally, for County councils, the total failure count was 43, making the failure rate 12.4%. There were 9 pages with no failures at all. These pages were all content pages. This represents 5% of all pages tested and just under 16% of all content pages. As all pages with no failures were content pages, there were no councils that had no failures. Out of 57 statements reviewed, there were 35 accessibility statements missing wording or headings that were defined as legally required within the government guidance [ 21 , 52 ]. The same table was also queried to identify how many accessibility statements, if any, stated that the website was compliant with WCAG. We decided to add this into our analysis, as we worked, and found that no websites were without any failures. Due to the limited scope, the testing we completed could not determine if a website was compliant, as not all success criteria in WCAG 2.1 Level AA were tested. However, we could determine that a website was not fully compliant, as most failures in our testing meant that a success criterion was failed. The exception in our testing was the skip links category, which, while a recommended accessibility feature, is not explicitly required by WCAG. Skip links allow keyboard users to skip repeated content on the page. However, none of the tested pages had failures in the skip links section alone. Therefore, if the pages contained an issue in our testing, the website was not fully compliant. Of the 57 statements reviewed, 3 incorrectly stated that the website was compliant. 23 of the 57 statements reviewed contained a claim of disproportionate burden. 11 claims referenced PDF documents, many of which mentioned the time and monetary costs of remediating the large backlog of historical PDF documents. Within the 57 statements reviewed, 32 were last reviewed over 1 year ago, at the time of analysis. 5.2 Relationship between failures and social deprivation and disability metrics In order to complete the additional analysis, it was necessary to import additional datasets. Firstly, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) was imported [ 53 ] and downloaded for use under the Open Government Licence v3.0 [ 54 ]. Secondly, 2021 Census data on disability sourced from the Office for National Statistics [ 55 ] was imported. Again, under the Open Government Licence. The licence allows users to “exploit the information commercially and non-commercially, e.g., by combining it with other information, or by including it in your own product or application” [ 54 ]. From these imported datasets we were able to map most councils onto the designated authorities in the additional datasets. We examined the relationship between the Index of multiple deprivation score and the number of failures found on each council website. The distribution of the data indicated no clear relationship between the number of failures found on a council’s website and the level of deprivation in each council’s area, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation [ 55 ]. We also examined the relationship between the percentage of the English population with a disability and the number of failures found on each council website. The distribution of the data indicated no clear relationship between the number of failures found on a council’s website and the percentage of the population in each council’s area that identified themselves as disabled in the 2021 census. Finally, we looked at the relationship between the population of each council area and the number of failures found on each council website. The distribution of the data indicated no clear relationship between the number of failures found on a council’s website and the population in each council’s area as recorded in the 2021 census. 6. Discussion Taken as a whole, the data show that councils are not complying with the legislation. Whilst this is concerning, the number of issues found on each council website was low. Although this shows councils are failing it does suggest that council’s websites are compliant with roughly 86% of the test points and are therefore meeting the guidelines to some extent. This is consistent with the findings of Laamanen, Ladonlahti, Puupponen et al. (2024) [ 26 ] and by Inal and Torkildsby [ 27 ], which suggests that accessibility levels are generally improving over time, but there are still substantial issues which need to be addressed in public facing websites. A comparison can be made between the results of our testing and the published monitoring results from GDS [ 45 ]. The simplified testing used by GDS is similar in scope and tests to the methodology used in our research; there is a small page sample in scope and only a small subset of WCAG success criteria are tested. In the GDS sample, 8 websites, out of 421 tested, were found to have no issues, compared with 0 websites having no failures out of the 57 tested in this paper. As the size of our study was much smaller than the GDS sample size, this is unsurprising. In addition, the monitoring results from GDS [ 45 ] also mention that the website with the most issues had 26 issues, in our own testing, the highest failure count on one website was 29 failures. This suggests that compliance with PSBAR in general showed modest improvement between 2021–2023. As part of the monitoring period between January 2022 and September 2024, GDS [ 58 ] carried out simplified testing of 204 public facing government websites. The results of this testing showed that 57% of the websites passed and required no further action. In contrast, 43% of the websites tested had a recommendation that suggested further enforcement may be necessary to improve accessibility [ 58 ]. In relation to accessibility statements, the published monitoring results from GDS [ 45 ] found that 83% of monitored sites had accessibility statements that were missing mandatory information, in our own testing this number was slightly lower at 61%. Similar to our own testing, they found that “many statements have not been updated since first publication, often in 2020 or earlier” [ 45 ]. In our own testing, we found that 32 of 57 statements were last updated over a year ago, representing roughly 56% of the sample tested. 6.1 Implications to practice In order to improve website accessibility, councils can make some simple changes. The categories with the most issues were Headings, Images and Colour. These categories happen to be some of the easiest issues to fix. While the policy surrounding accessibility is reasonably extensive, the levels of compliance are not satisfactory, with consistent faults found in a substantial percentage of public facing websites from government bodies. This suggests that further education is necessary on the subject of web accessibility for web designers and developers. This conclusion is shared by Inal and Torkildsby [ 27 ] who recommend that organisations offer their own policies and workshops to offer training to employees, raising awareness of the importance of accessibility. There should also be guidance on the common faults, and the various tools available to rectify them. From our research we have located the following tools and resources to aid councils in resolving the issues found in our study. WAI Tutorials [ 59 ] provide advice on a variety of useful topics to aid in improving accessibility. There is information on page structure, image alternative text and forms, which would be helpful to educate web developers and designers on specific accessibility errors commonly found on public authorities’ websites. Another helpful resource from WAI is the Image Alt Decision tree [ 60 ], which provides guidance on what alternative text is required for images. As this was a very common issue on the websites in our sample, this is a key resource that could help rectify this issue. For web developers who are looking to create accessible components, the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Authoring Practices Guide (APG) provides detailed examples and patterns (Web Accessibility Initiative, 2023) [ 6 ]. Another resource to aid in improving web accessibility is MDN Web Docs from the Mozilla Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that develops the Firefox Browser. This portal provides a wide range of resources about internet technologies such as HTML [ 61 ]. There is also Government guidance and tools for digital accessibility, from GDS and the CDDO, which provides guidance on designing and creating accessible online content [ 45 ]. These findings are not too dissimilar to the work of Paul [ 29 ], who concludes that there are some practical suggestions to enhance the accessibility of e-government websites, such as the importance of being able to operate a site using a keyboard (which is imperative for some users of assistive technologies), having appropriate colour contrast, and ensuring the correct use of page language metadata. 6.2 Limitations of the study Whilst our study provides a proportionate sample of English councils, it is somewhat limited due to time and resource constraints within our research. We were restricted to the assessment of web accessibility; however, it could be beneficial to explore how tools, training or other supportive materials could be used to improve compliance of websites by educating content and website creators about accessibility. To extend this work, by looking at the council experience of being monitored, future research could involve conducting interviews with both service providers and service users. It may also be valuable to expand research to include compliance of other public body groups, such as healthcare and education, as a comparison. The hope is that the findings of this additional research will help the industry understand what additional resources or support might be needed to assist organisations in achieving compliance with WCAG and PSBAR. 7. Conclusions and future research Our findings suggest that while the councils tested do not fully comply with PSBAR, they do appear to be attempting to improve the accessibility of their websites. However, websites appear to be neglecting their accessibility statements, either not meeting the mandatory wording needed or updating the content regularly. The key finding from our research is that 3 years after PSBAR came into force, council websites are still not fully meeting a basic level of accessibility. Further research could include looking at smaller councils, such as parish councils, this would further expand the understanding of how councils are meeting PSBAR and would provide a comparison against the larger ones involved in this research. Also, enforcement of the legislation could be explored, interviewing council employees who interact with the GDS monitoring teams to see where the experience could be improved for them. As WCAG is an international guideline, it would be informative to assess how compliant public authorities’ websites are at a global scale. Ara, Sik-Lanyi and Kelemen [ 62 ] conducted a systematic literature review on digital accessibility, which is extensive; however, it is limited to reports written in English, therefore further research could take an even more comprehensive global perspective on web accessibility. Declarations Declaration/disclosure Katherine works in a digital accessibility organisation who have an interest in the findings of our research; however, the organisation neither requested this research, nor did they provide any funding. Katherine identifies a person who has a disability, thus acknowledges that she has a personal interest in this topic. Being mindful of bias, we have made every effort to avoid bias with respect to selecting websites and applying evaluation techniques. Data availability statements The data generated and analysed during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References World Health Organisation (2011) ‘World Report on Disability’ Available at: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability (Accessed: 18 Feb 2025) Disability Discrimination Act (1995) c. 50 . Legislation.gov.uk . Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Lewis, P. (2020) ‘Disability Discrimination Act: 1995 and now’, UK Parliament , 6 November. Available at: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/disability-discrimination-act-1995-and-now/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Lawrie, E. (2020) 'Was 1995 the year that changed everything for disabled people?', BBC News, 7 November. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-54823810 (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) W3C. (s.f.). Accessibility principles. Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-principles/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Web Accessibility Initiative (2023) ARIA Authoring Practices Guide (APG) . Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Eren, I. (2022) What is WAI? The Web Accessibility Initiative. Available at: https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/what-is-wai/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G. and Jacobs, I. (1999) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 . Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. and Vanderheiden, G (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 . Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Birney, A. (2020) ‘WCAG Version History’, Accessible Web , 12 October. Available at: https://accessibleweb.com/wcag/wcag-version-history/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) Treaty no. 44910. United Nations Treaty Series , 2515, pp. 3-192. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/44910/Part/I-44910-080000028017bf87.pdf (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) United Nations (no date) Frequently Asked Questions regarding the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/frequently-asked-questions-regarding-the-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Equality Act (2010) c. 15 . Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) Services, Public functions, and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice . Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Lawton Henry, S., Gower, M. and Abou-Zahra, S. (2023a) What's New in WCAG 2.2 . Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-22/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) W3C (2024a) WCAG 2 Overview. Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/#versions (Accessed: 17 Mar 2025) The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/852). Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/852/contents/made (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) W3C (2024b) Explainer for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-explainer/ (Accessed: 17 Mar 2025) Kirkpatrick, A., O’Connor, J., Campbell, A. and Cooper, M. (2024) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 . Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) European Commission (2023) Web Accessibility . Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/web-accessibility (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Central Digital & Data Office (2024b) Model accessibility statement . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/model-accessibility-statement (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Central Digital & Data Office (2024c) Public sector website and mobile application accessibility monitoring . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-sector-website-and-mobile-application-accessibility-monitoring (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Central Digital & Data Office (2024a) Understanding accessibility requirements for public sector bodies . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/accessibility-requirements-for-public-sector-websites-and-apps (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Harris, G.B. (2021) UK Law and digital accessibility: What it means for your organisation . Available at: https://business.scope.org.uk/article/uk-law-and-digital-accessibility-what-it-means-for-your-organisation (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Królak, A., Zając, P. (2024) Analysis of the accessibility of selected massive open online courses (MOOCs) for users with disabilities. Univ Access Inf Soc 23, 191–202. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00927-2 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) Laamanen, M., Ladonlahti, T., Puupponen, H. et al. (2024) Does the law matter? An empirical study on the accessibility of Finnish higher education institutions’ web pages. Univ Access Inf Soc 23, 475–491. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00931-6 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) Inal, Y. and Torkildsby, A.B. (2025) Does the law make a difference? a longitudinal study on accessibility compliance of Norwegian municipality websites. Univ Access Inf Soc . Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01183-2 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) Kous, K., Kuhar, S., Pavlinek, M. et al. (2021) Web accessibility investigation of Slovenian municipalities’ websites before and after the adoption of European Standard EN 301 549. Univ Access Inf Soc 20, 595–615. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00732-9 (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025) Paul, S. (2023) Accessibility analysis using WCAG 2.1: evidence from Indian e-government websites. Univ Access Inf Soc 22, 663–669. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00861-9 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) Kesswani, N. and Kumar, S. (2022) Government website accessibility: a cross-country analysis of G7 and BRICS countries. Univ Access Inf Soc 21, 609–624. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00804-4 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) Akram, M., Ali, G.A., Sulaiman, A. et al. (2023) Accessibility evaluation of Arabic University websites for compliance with success criteria of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0. Univ Access Inf Soc 22, 1199–1214. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00921-8 (Accessed at: 21 Feb 2025) Macakoğlu, Ş.S., Peker, S. (2023) Accessibility evaluation of university hospital websites in Turkey. Univ Access Inf Soc 22, 1085–1093. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00886-8 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) TAW (no date) Web accessibility and W3C standardization services. Available at: https://www.tawdis.net/index?lang=en. (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) Free Broken Link Checking Tool (no date) Dead Link Checker. Available at: https://www.deadlinkchecker.com/. (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025) Google (no date) Introduction to Lighthouse. Available at: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/overview/ Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Google (no date) Google Chrome (Version 113.0.5672.92) [Computer program]. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Adam, P.J. (2024) JavaScript Bookmarklets for Accessibility Testing. Available at: https://www.pauljadam.com/bookmarklets.html (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Rumoroso, J. (2025) HeadingsMap. Available at: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/headingsmap/flbjommegcjonpdmenkdiocclhjacmbi?hl=en-GB (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) The Paciello Group (no date) Colour Contrast Analyser (CCA) (Version 1.2.1) [Computer Program] Available at: https://www.tpgi.com/color-contrast-checker/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Iannuzzi, N., Manca, M., Paternò, F. et al. (2024) Usability and transparency in the design of a tool for automatic support for web accessibility validation. Univ Access Inf Soc 23, 435–454. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00948-x (Accessed: 28 Feb 2025) Campoverde-Molina, M., Luján-Mora, S. and García, L. V. (2020), ‘Empirical Studies on Web Accessibility of Educational Websites: A Systematic Literature Review,’ in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 91676-91700. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9092982 (Accessed: 04 Mar 2025) Campoverde-Molina, M., Luján-Mora, S., Valverde, L. (2023) ‘Accessibility of university websites worldwide: a systematic literature review.’ Universal Access in the Information Society, 1–36. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10209-021-00825-z (Accessed: 04 Mar 2025) Londoño-Rojas, L.F., Tabares-Morales, V. & Duque-Méndez, N. (2023) AET tool for hybrid accessibility evaluation. Univ Access Inf Soc 22, 655–661. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00846-8 (Accessed: 28 Feb 2025) Central Digital & Data Office (2024d) Doing a basic accessibility check if you cannot do a detailed one . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/doing-a-basic-accessibility-check-if-you-cant-do-a-detailed-one/doing-a-basic-accessibility-check-if-you-cant-do-a-detailed-one (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Central Digital & Data Office and Government Digital Service (2021) Guidance and tools for digital accessibility . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-and-tools-for-digital-accessibility (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Central Digital & Data Office (2021) Accessibility monitoring of public sector websites and mobile apps 2020-2021 . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-2020-2021/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-2020-2021 (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) WebAIM (2024) The WebAIM Million . Available at: https://webaim.org/projects/million/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) Duran, M. (2017) ‘What we found when we tested tools on the world’s least-accessible webpage’, Accessibility in government , 24 February. Available at: https://accessibility.blog.gov.uk/2017/02/24/what-we-found-when-we-tested-tools-on-the-worlds-least-accessible-webpage/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2023) Local government structure and elections . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-government-structure-and-elections (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Thomas, L. (2023) Stratified Sampling | Definition, Guide & Examples . Available at: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/stratified-sampling/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) W3C (2024c) ‘Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content’ in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#non-text-content (Accessed: 06 April 2025) Central Digital & Data Office (2024e) Sample accessibility statement . Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sample-accessibility-statement/sample-accessibility-statement-for-a-fictional-public-sector-website (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019) ‘English indices of deprivation 2019: all ranks, deciles and scores for the indices of deprivation, and population denominators’. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc407b440f0b6379a7acc8d/File_7_-_All_IoD2019_Scores__Ranks__Deciles_and_Population_Denominators_3.csv/preview (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) The National Archives (no date) Open Government License for public sector information . Available at: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Office for National Statistics (2023) ‘Disability in England and Wales, 2021’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/datasets/disabilityinenglandandwales2021 (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Office for National Statistics (2022b) ‘Local Authority District to County (December 2022) Lookup in England’. Available at: https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/edf4bab38dc747fa9400fb52ae85a8ae_0/about (Accessed: 15 Apr 2023) Office for National Statistics (2022a) Licences . Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/licences (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Government Digital Service (2024) Accessibility monitoring of public sector websites and mobile apps from 2022 to 2024. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-from-2022-to-2024/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-from-2022-to-2024#what-has-been-monitored (Accessed: 17 Mar 2025) Eggert, E., Abou-Zahra, S., Elton, B., Lawton Henry, S., Leiserson, A.B., Rush, S., Egan, B. (2023a) Tutorials. Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Eggert, E., Abou-Zahra, S., Elton, B. (2023b) An alt Decision Tree. Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Mozilla (2025) Resources for Developers, by Developers . Available at: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Ara, J., Sik-Lanyi, C. & Kelemen, A. (2024) Accessibility engineering in web evaluation process: a systematic literature review . Univ Access Inf Soc 23, 653–686. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-00967-2 (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Universal Access in the Information Society → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 21 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 21 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 14 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 16 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 07 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7068344","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Short Report","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":532897390,"identity":"7da9e74d-3004-4402-be94-0e74f4af6018","order_by":0,"name":"Katherine Wharton","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Senior Accessibility and Usability Consultant","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katherine","middleName":"","lastName":"Wharton","suffix":""},{"id":532897391,"identity":"e9ea2b1c-b290-4cc5-b35f-45121fc1a75c","order_by":1,"name":"Libby Kavanagh-Smith","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Libby","middleName":"","lastName":"Kavanagh-Smith","suffix":""},{"id":532897392,"identity":"15f3241d-6baa-4aeb-a4ae-5132c7925bee","order_by":2,"name":"Chris Douce","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Open University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chris","middleName":"","lastName":"Douce","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-07 19:23:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7068344/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7068344/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-025-01269-5","type":"published","date":"2026-04-07T15:58:30+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94614054,"identity":"1e35cb4f-6b43-4765-9f85-0b21ffe2f7e2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-29 02:16:52","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":121162,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"EvaluatingtheAccessibilityofLocalAuthorityPublicFacingwebsitesinEnglandfinalv2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7068344/v1/8238936102f815068c9ac9c5.docx"},{"id":94614175,"identity":"effb4a5b-cc07-4d22-adb1-2b3e8e2d3045","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-29 02:17:02","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d496e0fed1074b8ea4d39255e0b01e4b.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7068344/v1/5b3fc095b7235df67a6c6fcf.json"},{"id":94614298,"identity":"3312c415-8c1d-4f03-83f9-1e2ae69ee1cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-29 02:17:10","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":137595,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d496e0fed1074b8ea4d39255e0b01e4b1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7068344/v1/bf404bb83745dee60970f8b0.xml"},{"id":94614285,"identity":"51050034-9827-4852-88b1-929f60d48a36","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-29 02:17:07","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":137826,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d496e0fed1074b8ea4d39255e0b01e4b1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7068344/v1/efd3a527bff095d80d7c3104.xml"},{"id":94614271,"identity":"4a1f005f-a3b2-4797-829e-9e7c75a696a6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-29 02:17:07","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":150305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7068344/v1/affea432551e7afd6245d73d.html"},{"id":106809090,"identity":"502fda25-c3e3-4b64-a112-02c46c1e5706","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-13 16:06:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1205726,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7068344/v1/c822f15a-041b-4f96-8c98-7aa3f38d915d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Evaluating the Accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe World Health Organisation (WHO) 2011 [1] report indicates that approximately 15% of the global population lives with a disability, with this figure growing as the average life expectancy increases. In the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) [2] was introduced as the first legislation protecting the rights of disabled people [3]. Subsequent amendments required organisations to amend policies, remove physical barriers and make reasonable adjustments in housing, although it does not explicitly mention digital or online content [4].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith technology increasingly replacing physical services it is essential to ensure that digital services are accessible to all. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) [5] created the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) [6] in 1997 [7]. The main goal of this initiative was to \u0026ldquo;make the internet accessible for people with disabilities\u0026rdquo; [7]. Part of the work of the WAI, is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 1999, the first version of WCAG was released containing fourteen guidelines and checkpoints within them. Each checkpoint was assigned a priority level, 1,2 or 3 and conformance levels of A, AA, and AAA. Conformance level A is achieved by satisfying priority 1 checkpoints, AA satisfies priority 1 and 2 checkpoints and AAA satisfies priority 1, 2 and 3 checkpoints [8]. Version 2.0 of the guidelines introduced four distinct principles identified by the acronym POUR: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust (Caldwell et al, 2008) [9]. In addition, 2.0 sought to address accessibility in a wide range of digital content, rather than only HTML content (Birney, 2020) [10]. With the increase in mobile web use to access online content (Birney, 2020) [10], WCAG 2.1 incorporated this aspect.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2009, the UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) (CRPD) [11], which, according to the UN (no date) [12], \u0026ldquo;identifies the rights of persons with disabilities as well as the obligations on States parties to the Convention to promote, protect and ensure those rights\u0026rdquo;. Article 9 of this convention calls for states to \u0026ldquo;enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life\u0026rdquo; and specifies that \u0026ldquo;information and communications technologies and systems\u0026rdquo; are included in this [11].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing this, the Equality Act 2010 [13] was introduced in England, Scotland, and Wales, which combined multiple anti-discrimination laws, including the DDA [2]. This legislation requires that organisations make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities (Section 20) [13], that information is provided in an accessible format (Section 20(6)) [13] and that service providers \u0026ldquo;must not discriminate against a person requiring the service\u0026rdquo; (Section 29(1)) [13]. In addition, the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) [14] clarified that \u0026ldquo;websites provide access to services and goods and may in themselves constitute a service\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWCAG continues to be developed alongside technology to ensure that guidelines remain relevant\u0026nbsp;[15]. At the time of writing, WCAG 2.2 is the most recently released version of WCAG \u0026nbsp;[16]. However, WCAG 2.1 was in use during our research, therefore when WCAG is referred to within this paper, it will be referring to WCAG version 2.1 unless otherwise stated.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe European Accessibility Act (EAA) (Directive (EU) 2019/882) came into force in 2019, with the directive needing to be implemented into local legislation by 28 June 2022. The harmonised standard used in this directive is expected to be a new version of ETSI EN 301 549, which has not yet been published; however, the current version of this standard contains and extends WCAG 2.1. The changes in 2.2 add 9 new success criteria and mark the 4.1.1 Parsing success criterion as obsolete and removed [15]. PSBAR [17] is aligned to the standard WCAG 2.2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the time of writing WCAG 3.0 is currently in development [18]. In the current working draft, \u0026ldquo;success criteria\u0026rdquo; have been removed, with each guideline now containing \u0026ldquo;Foundational Requirements\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Supplemental Requirements\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Assertions\u0026rdquo; [18]. The \u0026ldquo;Foundational Requirements\u0026rdquo; aim to test for a basic level of accessibility, similar to WCAG 2.2 level AA. The \u0026ldquo;Supplemental Requirements\u0026rdquo; aim for higher levels of conformance and accessibility. WCAG 3.0 aims to focus on easy-to-understand guidelines that focus on user needs and broad technology applicability. WCAG 3.0 will not be backwards compatible like the 2.X\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e versions, but 2.X will still be recognised as a conformance option [18].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis evaluative study assessed the accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England following the introduction of the United Kingdom Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (PSBAR) [17], using a subset of WCAG 2.1 [19]. We will discuss the current state of the literature in the background section and give an overview of our research aims in section 3. Section 4 details our methodology and data collection procedure, with section 5 exploring the results from each of our test points. Finally, we will discuss the implications of our research and potential future research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn 2016, the EU Web Accessibility Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/2102) came into force [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] requiring each member state to implement legislation. As this was before Brexit was finalised, this applied to the UK. In response, the UK developed PSBAR, which became law in 2018. PSBAR requires that the websites and apps of public sector bodies meet accessibility standards and that the body publishes an accessibility statement and provides feedback mechanisms for users. The UK government monitors compliance with the regulations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. During our research in 2023, these regulations required that websites and mobile apps of UK public sector bodies comply with WCAG 2.1 level AA [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to Harris (2021) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], PSBAR applies to:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Local and parish councils\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ecentral government departments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003emost NHS organisations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003emost universities and colleges\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003esome charities and other non-government organisations\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganisations can claim disproportionate burden, allowing them to balance the burden of making content accessible against the benefit to users of doing so. Organisations cannot claim disproportionate burden due to a lack of knowledge, time or because they do not consider it a priority. Where a claim is made, this must be stated in the organisation\u0026rsquo;s accessibility statement (Central Digital \u0026amp; Data Office, 2024a) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are several papers within the web accessibility literature which highlight the levels of compliance with national and international guidelines. One example of this is the Kr\u0026oacute;lak and Zając [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] paper which discusses the levels of non-compliance in online education platforms, utilising user feedback of a small sample of participants with a variety of disabilities. From the qualitative survey results, they concluded that while functionality is generally improving compared to 2014 levels, Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) still fall short in the WCAG categories of Perceivability and Operability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe legality of web accessibility is also discussed in Laamanen, Ladonlahti, Puupponen \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], with researchers finding that even with laws in place there are still failures to meet accessibility requirements in higher education institutions (HEIs). Their study focusses on the landing pages of HEIs as they see the most traffic. Data were collected prior to the introduction of a law regarding accessibility and 2.5 months after the introduction of the law. The results showed some improvements in web accessibility. The institutions with good accessibility prior to the law were still good, and the poor accessibility institutions remained poor, suggesting that the law did not induce adequate changes, and that further guidance is needed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe repercussions of legal amendments were also explored in the study of Norwegian Municipality websites by Inal and Torkildsby [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. This study offers a comparison to our study, as they discuss the accessibility of municipalities which are similar to county councils. The research demonstrates the changes in accessibility over a three-year period, following changes in legislation, offering an interesting long-term perspective. Using an automated tool to assess accessibility during the study, researchers found that although there were improvements in accessibility following the introduction of laws, there were still issues suggesting that further work is necessary to ensure digital equality. This is consistent with our findings, showing efforts are being made to improve online accessibility, but there is significant room for improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilar findings can be seen in the work of Kous, Kuhar, Pavlinek \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] who assessed the impact of the introduction of the EN 301 549 standard on web accessibility for Slovenian municipality websites. This study includes a large sample of Slovenian websites, with 189 websites being included. While this study is based on EN 301 549 guidelines, the authors explain that the content is largely the same as WCAG, most differences being structural. This early exploration of the impact of EN 301 549 shows a clear correlation between the introduction of the standard and the improvement of government websites, with none of the websites tested being fully compliant in 2017, and a third of the websites becoming fully compliant in 2018. This study highlights the positive impact of legislation on the equality of accessibility for internet users with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Paul (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] concentrated on e-government websites in India finding that many of the websites do not meet Levels A and AA compliance requirements for WCAG 2.1, thus making the sites difficult to utilise for some users with disabilities. The author [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic caused a shift of government services from the physical world to online. This study used a sample of 65 websites, making it a similar scale to our research and gained very similar results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Kesswani and Kumar [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] conducted research on the accessibility of government websites. They examined the governmental homepages of a mixture of G7 and BRICS countries, finding that there are flaws with most of the webpages tested regardless of whether the country was categorised as developed or developing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTurning to the importance and significance of methodology, Akram, Ali, Sulaiman \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] determined that automated testing alone is not appropriate to determine how well websites comply with WCAG guidelines and how accessible they are to users. The researchers found that the automated checkers were only able to identify 11\u0026ndash;26% of accessibility errors, with the remaining errors needing human input [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. This highlights the need for further manual testing of web accessibility by disabled stakeholders and experts, to ensure that issues are identified, and steps are taken towards resolution. This research also implies that further efforts could be made to create a sophisticated automated system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealthcare organisations are increasingly utilizing internet and communications technologies to improve how they offer their services. This is highlighted in the Macakoğlu and Peker (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] Turkish university hospitals study. This study follows similar methods to our research in that they analysed a sample of 58 web pages, though this study utilised automated testing tools. TAW [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], The Dead Link Checker tool [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] and the Google Mobile-Friendly Test (now Lighthouse) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] were employed as part of this study, whereas we opted for Chrome browser Developer Tools (Google, no date)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], Bookmarklets (Adam, no date)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], HeadingsMap Extension (Rumoroso, 2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] and TPGi Colour Contrast Analyser (The Paciello Group, no date)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. While Macakoğlu and Peker [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] used more automated testing in their evaluation, whereas we used a combination of manual and semi-automated testing, both studies found that the most common errors were related to non-text content alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs web accessibility is an emerging field of study, there is often a need to build tools to fulfil requirements. This is evidenced by the work of Iannuzzi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] who approach this area of study from an engineering perspective. Their research highlights the need for comprehensive tools that identify accessibility issues, showing real time feedback. There are often people working on websites without a technical background. This suggests that a more inclusive tool with options to explore the various elements that make a website accessible would be beneficial for a variety of stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere have been several systematic literature reviews (SLR) on web accessibility. Campoverde‑Molina et al. (2020) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] have carried out two SLRs in this area, with the first study concluding that the websites tested were not fully compliant with any version of the WCAG guidelines. The authors suggest that web developers make use of the abundance of available automated tools as well as manual evaluation of web accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn their second SLR, Campoverde‑Molina et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] concluded that the growing complexity of websites and the WCAG guidelines over time, make compliance with guidelines more difficult; the persistence of errors over time supports this theory. This study found that the most common errors were in the categories of \u0026ldquo;Text Alternatives, Adaptive, Distinguishable, Keyboard Accessibility, Navigable, Readable, Predictable, Input Assistance and Compatible\u0026rdquo; ([\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] pp. 165). In our research we gained comparable results in some of these categories, with Checkpoint 2 finding 133 pages with issues in Text Alternatives. Checkpoints 1 and 7 found 187 pages with issues in the Adaptive category, and Checkpoints 2, 6 and 8 found 164 pages with issues in the Distinguishable category. One of the conclusions drawn by Campoverde‑Molina et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] is that websites should be created with accessibility considerations from the outset, as this is a common issue with university websites; the authors suggest this may be due to lack of knowledge of, or interest in, the legislations from the web developers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn an official capacity, the UK Government Digital Service (GDS) monitors compliance with the regulations, by selecting a sample of the websites and apps in the scope of the regulations each year [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. GDS will use one of 2 testing methodologies when monitoring: simplified testing and detailed testing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. The simplified testing combines automated testing with a small selection of manual tests to test a reduced selection of WCAG criteria and the detailed testing involves testing against all WCAG 2.1 level AA success criteria (Central Digital \u0026amp; Data Office, 2024c) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Central Digital \u0026amp; Data Office (CDDO) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e] publish guidance on performing a basic accessibility check for organisations to assess their own websites. If organisations lack the in-house expertise to perform full accessibility testing, and paying for a third party to audit the content would present a disproportionate burden, they may complete this basic check themselves in place of a full audit. The checks detailed in this guidance can be performed by someone with minimal accessibility experience and test a sub-set of WCAG success criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen an organisation is selected for monitoring, the monitoring team at GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] test the organisation\u0026rsquo;s website using either the simplified or detailed methodology [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. Once this is complete, a report is compiled with the results and sent to the organisation. A report published by the CDDO [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e] noted that roughly 20% of organisations never responded to a monitoring report or subsequent contact. Through monitoring, GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] identified that organisations with a dedicated website team were more likely to respond to, and plan fixes for, issues in the report. These organisations were often larger organisations and typically also had fewer issues identified. By focusing on councils in England in 2023 this paper contributes to the conversation about the current state of implementation of PSBAR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf the public sector body is monitored and found not to comply, GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] may refer them to the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Additional resources are provided to organisations including published guidance referenced throughout this paper. If an organisation does not respond to contact from GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] and the EHRC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], the EHRC may continue with enforcement action. This can involve \u0026ldquo;entering into a binding agreement to comply with the regulations or conducting an investigation into the failure to make reasonable adjustments to ensure website accessibility\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. According to The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e], failure to comply with the regulations is legally interpreted as a failure to make a reasonable adjustment as described in the Equality Act 2010 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. In this instance, measures set out to enforce the Equality Act 2010 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] will apply.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research aims","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur research aims to address the following research areas in order to evaluate the accessibility of local authority public facing websites:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo identify the compliance with PSBAR in this sample and identify any trends indicated by the data collected.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore a correlation between the number of failures and levels of social deprivation and disability within each council area.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvaluating websites according to the full scope of WCAG 2.1 level AA, would have required more time and resources than were available during our research. As a result, a subset of WCAG success criteria were tested. The government\u0026rsquo;s guidance on performing a basic check [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e] and the WebAim Million results [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] were used to identify key categories where issues are commonly found on websites. Within each of these categories, we identified up to 4 test points and created a question for each test point to identify passes and fails in the data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e outlines the categories, user groups affected by issues in each category, and the test points used within this research. Where a test point relates directly to WCAG [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], the success criteria being assessed have been included in brackets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the test points, the accessibility statements published by councils were assessed. PSBAR requires that public sector bodies \u0026ldquo;publish an accessibility statement that explains how accessible your website or mobile app is\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. This accessibility statement should identify conformance with WCAG, where components are not accessible and whether the organisation is claiming disproportionate burden [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. It is important to record these, as there may be a claim of disproportionate burden related to a specific area of our testing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe found it was necessary to use a variety of semi-automated tools, along with manual assessment to reduce testing time and ensure accuracy in our results. An investigation into automated testing tools was carried out by the GDS accessibility team in 2017 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. This investigation tested a page, with 143 deliberately introduced accessibility issues, with 13 different automated testing tools. The best automated tool found only 40% of the issues, with the worst tool finding only 13% of the issues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. 29% of the issues were not identified by any tool, meaning even using multiple automated testing tools would not be sufficient to assess accessibility properly [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. As a result, the industry recommends that manual testing is always performed when assessing accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo guide our testing, we built an app and database to effectively collect and analyse data in our research; allowing councils to be requested, which the tool then selected from the list that had not yet been tested. When undertaking the testing, the tool was implemented to keep track of and record the results of each checkpoint and test, along with any relevant notes for that test. Similar methods were used by Londo\u0026ntilde;o-Rojas, Tabares-Morales \u0026amp; Duque-M\u0026eacute;ndez [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] who also focused on hybrid accessibility evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo allow for testing of different types of content, 3 pages were assessed on each website, the homepage, a content page and a form page. The homepage is specifically listed as a page to test by the government [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. The other 2-page types offered variation in the type of content being tested including, but not limited to, form elements, headings and links. These page types were chosen as they generally represent the types of content that the government suggest are necessary in a basic check [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to select council websites, a sample needed to be identified. To practically contain the scope of this research, we limited our investigation to English councils. A record of all councils in England was sourced [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e], which identified that, at the time of our research, there were 333 councils in England. Our research applied a stratified, proportionate, random sampling technique [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. This allowed for grouping of the total population by type of council, these strata are: Metropolitan District, Unitary Authority, London Borough, District and County. This was necessary as the distinct types of councils may have different budget or resource availability and therefore the accessibility may vary by type of council. This allowed for evaluation of the accessibility of different types of council separately as well as overall.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo give a confidence level of 90% with a margin of error of +/-10%, we chose to test a sample size of 57 websites, distributed proportionately across the strata defined above. To test 3 pages on each site, 171 pages would be tested, with 57 accessibility statements being reviewed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Data collection procedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur custom app was used to select each council to test. In turn, test results were recorded and saved to a local database, enabling our data to be later queried and analysed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCategories and test points\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisability category affected\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImpact on users\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest points\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Headings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScreen reader users use headings to help them understand the structure of a page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncorrect heading structure can make this harder for users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.1 Are headings marked up as such? (1.3.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.2 Does the heading structure match the visual structure? (1.3.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.3 Plain text is not marked up as a heading inappropriately. (1.3.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeadings help users scan a page to find the section they are looking for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBrowser extensions, such as HeadingsMap, are sometimes used by these users to help them understand the structure of the page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Images\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScreen reader users rely on text alternatives for images to understand the visual content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrently screen readers are unable to accurately describe the content of an image to users independently.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImages of text cannot be reliably enlarged with pixelation, making perceiving the text in these images harder for low-vision users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.1 Do all images have an alt attribute? (1.1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.2 Do informative and functional images have appropriate alternative text? (1.1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.3 Decorative images do not have redundant alternative text. (1.1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.4 There are no images of text. (1.4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHaving text-based representations of images can help some users process the content of important images.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImages of text cannot have the letter, word, and line spacing adjusted dynamically by the user, which some users may find helps them to read content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Keyboard Navigation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScreen readers are primarily controlled using the keyboard as users may not be able to perceive the mouse cursor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf elements are not keyboard operable, screen reader users may also struggle to operate them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.1 Can all elements be operated using a keyboard? (2.1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.2 Do all elements have visible focus indication? (2.4.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.3 Is the focus order logical? (2.4.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.4 Focus is not trapped inappropriately. (2.1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsers with motor impairments may use either the keyboard \u0026ldquo;Tab\u0026rdquo; key and/or voice recognition software to access elements on the page, both of which require elements to be keyboard operable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKeyboard-only users also need to know where they are on the page, which can be difficult when elements have no visible focus indicator.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Skip links\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkip links allow users to skip over repeated content on a page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBroken or non-existent skip links could mean users have to navigate through lengthy navigation menus repeatedly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.1 Is there a skip link present?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.2 Does the skip link become visible on focus?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.3 Does the skip link work properly?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, skip links allow keyboard-only users to skip over repeated components.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. Page titles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePage titles provide users with a summary of the page and can help users confirm they are on the page they expect to be on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf page titles are not accurate, users may need to take additional time to navigate through the page to confirm they are where they expected to be.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.1 Does the page have a page title? (2.4.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.2 Is the page title accurate? (2.4.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePage titles can help users with memory impairments remind themselves where they are in a process or website and what they were doing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Colour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePoor text contrast and using colour alone to communicate information can disproportionately impact low-vision and colour-blind users, as they may struggle to perceive the elements on the page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.1 There are no text colour contrast failures (1.4.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.2 No content relies on colour alone (1.4.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Form components\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eControls with no accessible name may mean some users are unable to perceive what that control does.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eForm fields missing associations with labels and errors means some users may miss important information they need to correctly complete the form field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.1 Do all elements have an accessible name? (4.1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.2 Are labels associated with input fields? (1.3.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.3 Are errors associated with input fields? (1.3.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.4 Are errors described in text? (3.3.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eControls missing accessible names can make it particularly hard for voice recognition users to use those controls, as the software does not respond as the user might expect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsers with cognitive impairments might find it particularly challenging to remediate errors when they are not described in text due to the increased cognitive load required to understand and work out what is wrong.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. Zoom and reflow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow-vision users may need to zoom into a page significantly to perceive the content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf this causes important content or functionality to overflow, overlap, or disappear then users may be unable to use the page or perceive the content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.1 There is no lost content at 400% zoom. (1.4.10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.2 There is no lost functionality at 400% zoom. (1.4.10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.3 Users don\u0026rsquo;t need to scroll in multiple directions at 400% zoom. (1.4.10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome users with motor impairments may use smaller devices to access websites, such as mounting an iPad on a power chair.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf pages do not reflow appropriately for smaller viewports, they can become difficult to use or content or functionality can be lost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. Multimedia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHearing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAudio content with no captions or transcript can be difficult or impossible to perceive for some users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.1 Can moving content be paused, stopped, or hidden? (2.2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.2 Do videos have audio description, where applicable? (1.2.3/1.2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.3 Do videos have captions, where applicable? (1.2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.4 Does audio content have a transcript? (1.2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVision\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVideo content with no audio description of any sort can be difficult or impossible for some users to perceive.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome users may struggle to keep their attention focussed on video or audio content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome users may struggle to process audio or video content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome users may find moving or changing content distracting or overwhelming.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.1 Headings\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test headings on each page a combination of the Paul J Adam Headings bookmarklet [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], the HeadingsMap Chrome browser extension [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] and the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] was used. The bookmarklet displayed annotations on the page next to the headings that were visually present. The browser extension allowed all heading elements on the page to be seen, even if they were visually hidden. The combination of these tools allowed for assessment of whether text that titles content was marked up as a heading, that there was no text that was inappropriately marked up as a heading when it did not title content and that the heading structure on the page matched the visual structure accurately. Where needed, Developer Tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] were employed to inspect the code of the website to check any heading elements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.2 Images\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test the images on each page a combination of the Paul J Adam Images bookmarklet [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] and the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] were used. The bookmarklet displayed annotations next to the images on the page. The bookmarklet was used to check that images had alt attributes with appropriate alternative text, based on the use of the image on the page. If an image did not present any unique or meaningful information, it was classed as decorative and should have been hidden from assistive technology, most commonly achieved using a null alt attribute [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. If the image provided unique information to the page, it was classed as informative and should have a text alternative that described the content of the image. If the image was used for functionality, such as an image link, the alternative text should have been descriptive of the functionality. The Developer Tools were used to check any instances where the bookmarklet did not work, such as when images were added to the page without using the \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;img\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;element. A visual check was used to assess if the images contained text that was not present on the page as text that can be styled and accessed by assistive technology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.3 Keyboard Navigation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test the keyboard navigation, the Tab key was used to navigate through the page. This enabled a check to ensure that all elements received visible focus in a logical order and responded to keyboard input, such as responding to the Space and Enter keys. It was noted if there was anywhere that keyboard focus was trapped and could not be moved away from.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.4 Skip Links\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test the skip links, we navigated to the top of the page using the keyboard. We checked that the link was present, became visible when receiving focus and responded appropriately when activated by moving both visual and keyboard focus down the page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.5 Page Titles\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test the page title, the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] were used to view the title element. A visual check was used to verify that the text used in the element reflected the content and purpose of the page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.6 Colour\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test the colour used on the page the TPGi Colour Contrast Analyser [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] and the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] were used. A visual check identified where there was text on the page that may fail the contrast requirements of 4.5:1 contrast ratio for regular sized text and 3:1 for large text. Where text was identified as potentially failing, Developer Tools were used to retrieve the colour value, such as the hexidecimal value. These values were then used in the Contrast Analyser to check the contrast ratio between the colour of the text and the background. Finally, a check was carried out to assess if there were instances where colour is the only method used to communicate information on the page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.7 Form Components\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test form components, the Chrome Browser Developer Tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] were used along with visual checks. Visual checks were used to identify where errors are not described in text. For accessible names, labels and errors being associated with input fields, the Developer Tools were used to check that these were provided and associated correctly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.8 Zoom and Reflow\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo check zoom and reflow, the Chrome Browser and Chrome Browser Developer Tools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] were used. These tools allowed for changing of the viewport of the page to 320 x 256 px. This is the viewport used to assess the reflow success criterion. At this viewport, we checked that no content or functionality was lost and that users did not need to scroll in multiple directions to view content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.9 Multimedia\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test multimedia, we checked any visual and audio multimedia content had appropriate alternatives, including captions, transcripts and audio description. We also visually checked that there was no automatically moving content that could not be stopped by the user.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur analysis focused on several distinct test categories (see Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), which gave an indication of how well individual councils were meeting the regulations, as well as across council types.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Compliance with PSBAR\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe total failure count recorded during testing, excluding accessibility statements, was 679 failures. The total failure count possible on a single page is 29, 171 pages were tested, therefore the total possible failure count was 4,959. 679 failures represent a 13.7% failure rate. The full list of the number of failures in each category is given in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe category with the most failures was \u0026lsquo;Images,\u0026rsquo; with 161 failures recorded. The category with the fewest failures was \u0026lsquo;Page Titles\u0026rsquo; with only 2 failures. Due to the variation in the number of test points in each category, the category with the highest proportion of failures was \u0026lsquo;Headings,\u0026rsquo; which had 129 failures. This represented a 25.1% failure rate, whereas the Images category had a failure rate of 23.5%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of failures in each category\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest Category\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of failures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage failed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeadings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e129\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.1%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImages\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e161\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKeyboard\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkip Links\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePage Titles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eColour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eForms\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eZoom and Reflow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMultimedia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults for each test point can be found in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e below. The test points are referred to by their numbers, which are detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e above.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest point results\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest point\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePages failing this test\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePages failing only this test\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1.1 Headings are marked up\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1.2 Structure is correct\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1.3 Plain text does not use heading semantics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.1 Images have no alt attribute\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.2 Informative and functional images have bad alternatives\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.3 Decorative images have redundant alternatives\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.4 Images of text present\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.1 Elements not keyboard operable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.2 No focus indication\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.3 Illogical focus order\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.4 Keyboard trap present\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.1 Skip link not present\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.2 Skip link not visible on focus\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.3 Skip link does not work\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5.1 No page title\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5.2 Page title not accurate\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6.1 Text fails contrast test\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6.2 Content relies on colour alone\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7.1 Elements missing accessible name\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7.2 Labels not associated with input fields\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7.3 Errors not associated with input fields\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7.4 Errors not described in text\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8.1 Content lost at 400%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8.2 Functionality lost at 400%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8.3 2-axis scrolling needed at 400%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9.1 Content cannot be paused, stopped, or hidden\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9.2 Video has no audio description\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9.3 Video has no captions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9.4 Audio has no transcript\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe total failure count on homepages was 321, making the failure rate 19.4%. For content pages, the total failure count was 133, making the failure rate 8%. Finally, for form pages, the total failure count was 225, making the failure rate 13.6%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe total failure count on District councils was 360, making the failure rate 13.3%. For Metropolitan District councils, the total failure count was 81, making the failure rate 15.5%. For Unitary Authorities, the total failure count was 122, making the failure rate 14%. For London Boroughs, the total failure count was 73, making the failure rate 14%. Finally, for County councils, the total failure count was 43, making the failure rate 12.4%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere were 9 pages with no failures at all. These pages were all content pages. This represents 5% of all pages tested and just under 16% of all content pages. As all pages with no failures were content pages, there were no councils that had no failures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOut of 57 statements reviewed, there were 35 accessibility statements missing wording or headings that were defined as legally required within the government guidance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe same table was also queried to identify how many accessibility statements, if any, stated that the website was compliant with WCAG. We decided to add this into our analysis, as we worked, and found that no websites were without any failures. Due to the limited scope, the testing we completed could not determine if a website was compliant, as not all success criteria in WCAG 2.1 Level AA were tested. However, we could determine that a website was not fully compliant, as most failures in our testing meant that a success criterion was failed. The exception in our testing was the skip links category, which, while a recommended accessibility feature, is not explicitly required by WCAG. Skip links allow keyboard users to skip repeated content on the page. However, none of the tested pages had failures in the skip links section alone. Therefore, if the pages contained an issue in our testing, the website was not fully compliant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the 57 statements reviewed, 3 incorrectly stated that the website was compliant. 23 of the 57 statements reviewed contained a claim of disproportionate burden. 11 claims referenced PDF documents, many of which mentioned the time and monetary costs of remediating the large backlog of historical PDF documents. Within the 57 statements reviewed, 32 were last reviewed over 1 year ago, at the time of analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Relationship between failures and social deprivation and disability metrics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to complete the additional analysis, it was necessary to import additional datasets. Firstly, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) was imported [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e] and downloaded for use under the Open Government Licence v3.0 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Secondly, 2021 Census data on disability sourced from the Office for National Statistics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e] was imported. Again, under the Open Government Licence. The licence allows users to \u0026ldquo;exploit the information commercially and non-commercially, e.g., by combining it with other information, or by including it in your own product or application\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. From these imported datasets we were able to map most councils onto the designated authorities in the additional datasets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe examined the relationship between the Index of multiple deprivation score and the number of failures found on each council website. The distribution of the data indicated no clear relationship between the number of failures found on a council\u0026rsquo;s website and the level of deprivation in each council\u0026rsquo;s area, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe also examined the relationship between the percentage of the English population with a disability and the number of failures found on each council website. The distribution of the data indicated no clear relationship between the number of failures found on a council\u0026rsquo;s website and the percentage of the population in each council\u0026rsquo;s area that identified themselves as disabled in the 2021 census.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, we looked at the relationship between the population of each council area and the number of failures found on each council website. The distribution of the data indicated no clear relationship between the number of failures found on a council\u0026rsquo;s website and the population in each council\u0026rsquo;s area as recorded in the 2021 census.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTaken as a whole, the data show that councils are not complying with the legislation. Whilst this is concerning, the number of issues found on each council website was low. Although this shows councils are failing it does suggest that council\u0026rsquo;s websites are compliant with roughly 86% of the test points and are therefore meeting the guidelines to some extent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is consistent with the findings of Laamanen, Ladonlahti, Puupponen et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] and by Inal and Torkildsby [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], which suggests that accessibility levels are generally improving over time, but there are still substantial issues which need to be addressed in public facing websites.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA comparison can be made between the results of our testing and the published monitoring results from GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. The simplified testing used by GDS is similar in scope and tests to the methodology used in our research; there is a small page sample in scope and only a small subset of WCAG success criteria are tested. In the GDS sample, 8 websites, out of 421 tested, were found to have no issues, compared with 0 websites having no failures out of the 57 tested in this paper. As the size of our study was much smaller than the GDS sample size, this is unsurprising. In addition, the monitoring results from GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] also mention that the website with the most issues had 26 issues, in our own testing, the highest failure count on one website was 29 failures. This suggests that compliance with PSBAR in general showed modest improvement between 2021\u0026ndash;2023.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs part of the monitoring period between January 2022 and September 2024, GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e] carried out simplified testing of 204 public facing government websites. The results of this testing showed that 57% of the websites passed and required no further action. In contrast, 43% of the websites tested had a recommendation that suggested further enforcement may be necessary to improve accessibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn relation to accessibility statements, the published monitoring results from GDS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] found that 83% of monitored sites had accessibility statements that were missing mandatory information, in our own testing this number was slightly lower at 61%. Similar to our own testing, they found that \u0026ldquo;many statements have not been updated since first publication, often in 2020 or earlier\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. In our own testing, we found that 32 of 57 statements were last updated over a year ago, representing roughly 56% of the sample tested.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.1 Implications to practice\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to improve website accessibility, councils can make some simple changes. The categories with the most issues were Headings, Images and Colour. These categories happen to be some of the easiest issues to fix.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the policy surrounding accessibility is reasonably extensive, the levels of compliance are not satisfactory, with consistent faults found in a substantial percentage of public facing websites from government bodies. This suggests that further education is necessary on the subject of web accessibility for web designers and developers. This conclusion is shared by Inal and Torkildsby [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] who recommend that organisations offer their own policies and workshops to offer training to employees, raising awareness of the importance of accessibility. There should also be guidance on the common faults, and the various tools available to rectify them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom our research we have located the following tools and resources to aid councils in resolving the issues found in our study. WAI Tutorials [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e] provide advice on a variety of useful topics to aid in improving accessibility. There is information on page structure, image alternative text and forms, which would be helpful to educate web developers and designers on specific accessibility errors commonly found on public authorities\u0026rsquo; websites. Another helpful resource from WAI is the Image Alt Decision tree [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e], which provides guidance on what alternative text is required for images. As this was a very common issue on the websites in our sample, this is a key resource that could help rectify this issue. For web developers who are looking to create accessible components, the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Authoring Practices Guide (APG) provides detailed examples and patterns (Web Accessibility Initiative, 2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother resource to aid in improving web accessibility is MDN Web Docs from the Mozilla Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that develops the Firefox Browser. This portal provides a wide range of resources about internet technologies such as HTML [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e]. There is also Government guidance and tools for digital accessibility, from GDS and the CDDO, which provides guidance on designing and creating accessible online content [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings are not too dissimilar to the work of Paul [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], who concludes that there are some practical suggestions to enhance the accessibility of e-government websites, such as the importance of being able to operate a site using a keyboard (which is imperative for some users of assistive technologies), having appropriate colour contrast, and ensuring the correct use of page language metadata.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.2 Limitations of the study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhilst our study provides a proportionate sample of English councils, it is somewhat limited due to time and resource constraints within our research. We were restricted to the assessment of web accessibility; however, it could be beneficial to explore how tools, training or other supportive materials could be used to improve compliance of websites by educating content and website creators about accessibility. To extend this work, by looking at the council experience of being monitored, future research could involve conducting interviews with both service providers and service users. It may also be valuable to expand research to include compliance of other public body groups, such as healthcare and education, as a comparison. The hope is that the findings of this additional research will help the industry understand what additional resources or support might be needed to assist organisations in achieving compliance with WCAG and PSBAR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusions and future research","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur findings suggest that while the councils tested do not fully comply with PSBAR, they do appear to be attempting to improve the accessibility of their websites. However, websites appear to be neglecting their accessibility statements, either not meeting the mandatory wording needed or updating the content regularly. The key finding from our research is that 3 years after PSBAR came into force, council websites are still not fully meeting a basic level of accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther research could include looking at smaller councils, such as parish councils, this would further expand the understanding of how councils are meeting PSBAR and would provide a comparison against the larger ones involved in this research. Also, enforcement of the legislation could be explored, interviewing council employees who interact with the GDS monitoring teams to see where the experience could be improved for them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs WCAG is an international guideline, it would be informative to assess how compliant public authorities\u0026rsquo; websites are at a global scale. Ara, Sik-Lanyi and Kelemen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e] conducted a systematic literature review on digital accessibility, which is extensive; however, it is limited to reports written in English, therefore further research could take an even more comprehensive global perspective on web accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eDeclaration/disclosure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatherine works in a digital accessibility organisation who have an interest in the findings of our research; however, the organisation neither requested this research, nor did they provide any funding. Katherine identifies a person who has a disability, thus acknowledges that she has a personal interest in this topic. Being mindful of bias, we have made every effort to avoid bias with respect to selecting websites and applying evaluation techniques. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability statements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data generated and analysed during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organisation (2011) \u0026lsquo;World Report on Disability\u0026rsquo; Available at: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability (Accessed: 18 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDisability Discrimination Act\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e(1995)\u003cem\u003e c. 50\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eLegislation.gov.uk\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis, P. (2020) \u0026lsquo;Disability Discrimination Act: 1995 and now\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eUK Parliament\u003c/em\u003e, 6 November. Available at: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/disability-discrimination-act-1995-and-now/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLawrie, E. (2020) \u0026apos;Was 1995 the year that changed everything for disabled people?\u0026apos;, BBC News, 7 November. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-54823810 (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eW3C. (s.f.). Accessibility principles. Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-principles/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeb Accessibility Initiative (2023) \u003cem\u003eARIA Authoring Practices Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(APG)\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEren, I. (2022) \u003cem\u003eWhat is WAI? The Web Accessibility Initiative.\u003c/em\u003e Available at: https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/what-is-wai/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G. and Jacobs, I. (1999) \u003cem\u003eWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. and Vanderheiden, G (2008) \u003cem\u003eWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirney, A. (2020) \u0026lsquo;WCAG Version History\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eAccessible Web\u003c/em\u003e, 12 October. Available at: https://accessibleweb.com/wcag/wcag-version-history/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e (2006) Treaty no. 44910. \u003cem\u003eUnited Nations Treaty Series\u003c/em\u003e, 2515, pp. 3-192. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/44910/Part/I-44910-080000028017bf87.pdf (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations (no date) \u003cem\u003eFrequently Asked Questions regarding the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/frequently-asked-questions-regarding-the-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEquality Act (2010)\u003cem\u003e c. 15\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eLegislation.gov.uk.\u003c/em\u003e Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEquality and Human Rights Commission (2011) \u003cem\u003eServices, Public functions, and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLawton Henry, S., Gower, M. and Abou-Zahra, S. (2023a) \u003cem\u003eWhat\u0026apos;s New in WCAG 2.2\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-22/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eW3C (2024a) \u003cem\u003eWCAG 2 Overview. \u003c/em\u003eAvailable at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/#versions (Accessed: 17 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 \u003c/em\u003e(SI 2018/852). Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/852/contents/made (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eW3C (2024b) Explainer for W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-explainer/ (Accessed: 17 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirkpatrick, A., O\u0026rsquo;Connor, J., Campbell, A. and Cooper, M. (2024) \u003cem\u003eWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission (2023) \u003cem\u003eWeb Accessibility\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/web-accessibility (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Digital \u0026amp; Data Office (2024b) \u003cem\u003eModel accessibility statement\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/model-accessibility-statement (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Digital \u0026amp; Data Office (2024c) \u003cem\u003ePublic sector website and mobile application accessibility monitoring\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-sector-website-and-mobile-application-accessibility-monitoring (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Digital \u0026amp; Data Office (2024a) \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding accessibility requirements for public sector bodies\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/accessibility-requirements-for-public-sector-websites-and-apps (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, G.B. (2021) \u003cem\u003eUK Law and digital accessibility: What it means for your organisation\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://business.scope.org.uk/article/uk-law-and-digital-accessibility-what-it-means-for-your-organisation (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKr\u0026oacute;lak, A., Zając, P. (2024) Analysis of the accessibility of selected massive open online courses (MOOCs) for users with disabilities. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 23, 191\u0026ndash;202. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00927-2 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaamanen, M., Ladonlahti, T., Puupponen, H. \u003cem\u003eet al. (2024) \u003c/em\u003eDoes the law matter? An empirical study on the accessibility of Finnish higher education institutions\u0026rsquo; web pages. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 23, 475\u0026ndash;491. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00931-6 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInal, Y. and Torkildsby, A.B. (2025) Does the law make a difference? a longitudinal study on accessibility compliance of Norwegian municipality websites. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01183-2 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKous, K., Kuhar, S., Pavlinek, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2021) Web accessibility investigation of Slovenian municipalities\u0026rsquo; websites before and after the adoption of European Standard EN 301 549. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 20, 595\u0026ndash;615. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00732-9 (Accessed: 27 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaul, S. (2023) Accessibility analysis using WCAG 2.1: evidence from Indian e-government websites. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 22, 663\u0026ndash;669. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00861-9 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKesswani, N. and Kumar, S. (2022) Government website accessibility: a cross-country analysis of G7 and BRICS countries. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 21, 609\u0026ndash;624. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00804-4 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkram, M., Ali, G.A., Sulaiman, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2023) Accessibility evaluation of Arabic University websites for compliance with success criteria of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 22, 1199\u0026ndash;1214. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00921-8 (Accessed at: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacakoğlu, Ş.S., Peker, S. (2023) Accessibility evaluation of university hospital websites in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 22, 1085\u0026ndash;1093. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00886-8 (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTAW (no date) Web accessibility and W3C standardization services. Available at: https://www.tawdis.net/index?lang=en. (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFree Broken Link Checking Tool (no date) Dead Link Checker. Available at: https://www.deadlinkchecker.com/. (Accessed: 21 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoogle (no date) Introduction to Lighthouse. Available at: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/overview/ Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoogle (no date) \u003cem\u003eGoogle Chrome\u003c/em\u003e (Version 113.0.5672.92) [Computer program]. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdam, P.J. (2024) \u003cem\u003eJavaScript Bookmarklets for Accessibility Testing.\u003c/em\u003e Available at: https://www.pauljadam.com/bookmarklets.html (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRumoroso, J. (2025) \u003cem\u003eHeadingsMap. \u003c/em\u003eAvailable at: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/headingsmap/flbjommegcjonpdmenkdiocclhjacmbi?hl=en-GB (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Paciello Group (no date) \u003cem\u003eColour Contrast Analyser (CCA)\u003c/em\u003e (Version 1.2.1) [Computer Program] Available at: https://www.tpgi.com/color-contrast-checker/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIannuzzi, N., Manca, M., Patern\u0026ograve;, F. \u003cem\u003eet al. (2024)\u003c/em\u003e Usability and transparency in the design of a tool for automatic support for web accessibility validation. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 23, 435\u0026ndash;454. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00948-x (Accessed: 28 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampoverde-Molina, M., Luj\u0026aacute;n-Mora, S. and Garc\u0026iacute;a, L. V. (2020), \u0026lsquo;Empirical Studies on Web Accessibility of Educational Websites: A Systematic Literature Review,\u0026rsquo; in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 91676-91700. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9092982 (Accessed: 04 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampoverde-Molina, M., Luj\u0026aacute;n-Mora, S., Valverde, L. (2023) \u0026lsquo;Accessibility of university websites worldwide: a systematic literature review.\u0026rsquo; Universal Access in the Information Society, 1\u0026ndash;36. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10209-021-00825-z (Accessed: 04 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLondo\u0026ntilde;o-Rojas, L.F., Tabares-Morales, V. \u0026amp; Duque-M\u0026eacute;ndez, N. (2023) AET tool for hybrid accessibility evaluation. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 22, 655\u0026ndash;661. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00846-8 (Accessed: 28 Feb 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Digital \u0026amp; Data Office (2024d) \u003cem\u003eDoing a basic accessibility check if you cannot do a detailed one\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/doing-a-basic-accessibility-check-if-you-cant-do-a-detailed-one/doing-a-basic-accessibility-check-if-you-cant-do-a-detailed-one (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Digital \u0026amp; Data Office and Government Digital Service (2021) \u003cem\u003eGuidance and tools for digital accessibility\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-and-tools-for-digital-accessibility (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Digital \u0026amp; Data Office (2021) \u003cem\u003eAccessibility monitoring of public sector websites and mobile apps 2020-2021\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-2020-2021/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-2020-2021 (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebAIM (2024) \u003cem\u003eThe WebAIM Million\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://webaim.org/projects/million/ (Accessed: 25 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuran, M. (2017) \u0026lsquo;What we found when we tested tools on the world\u0026rsquo;s least-accessible webpage\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eAccessibility in government\u003c/em\u003e, 24 February. Available at: https://accessibility.blog.gov.uk/2017/02/24/what-we-found-when-we-tested-tools-on-the-worlds-least-accessible-webpage/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepartment for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Ministry of Housing, Communities \u0026amp; Local Government (2023) \u003cem\u003eLocal government structure and elections\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-government-structure-and-elections (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, L. (2023) \u003cem\u003eStratified Sampling | Definition, Guide \u0026amp; Examples\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/stratified-sampling/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eW3C (2024c) \u0026lsquo;Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content\u0026rsquo; in \u003cem\u003eWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. \u003c/em\u003eAvailable at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#non-text-content (Accessed: 06 April 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Digital \u0026amp; Data Office (2024e) \u003cem\u003eSample accessibility statement\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sample-accessibility-statement/sample-accessibility-statement-for-a-fictional-public-sector-website (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Housing, Communities \u0026amp; Local Government (2019) \u0026lsquo;English indices of deprivation 2019: all ranks, deciles and scores for the indices of deprivation, and population denominators\u0026rsquo;. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc407b440f0b6379a7acc8d/File_7_-_All_IoD2019_Scores__Ranks__Deciles_and_Population_Denominators_3.csv/preview (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe National Archives (no date) \u003cem\u003eOpen Government License for public sector information\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOffice for National Statistics (2023) \u0026lsquo;Disability in England and Wales, 2021\u0026rsquo;. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/datasets/disabilityinenglandandwales2021 (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOffice for National Statistics (2022b) \u0026lsquo;Local Authority District to County (December 2022) Lookup in England\u0026rsquo;. Available at: https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/edf4bab38dc747fa9400fb52ae85a8ae_0/about (Accessed: 15 Apr 2023) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOffice for National Statistics (2022a) \u003cem\u003eLicences\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/licences (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment Digital Service (2024) \u003cem\u003eAccessibility monitoring of public sector websites and mobile apps from 2022 to 2024. \u003c/em\u003eAvailable at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-from-2022-to-2024/accessibility-monitoring-of-public-sector-websites-and-mobile-apps-from-2022-to-2024#what-has-been-monitored (Accessed: 17 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEggert, E., Abou-Zahra, S., Elton, B., Lawton Henry, S., Leiserson, A.B., Rush, S., Egan, B. (2023a)\u003cem\u003e Tutorials. \u003c/em\u003eAvailable at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEggert, E., Abou-Zahra, S., Elton, B. (2023b)\u003cem\u003e An\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ealt\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecision Tree.\u003c/em\u003e Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMozilla (2025) \u003cem\u003eResources for Developers, by Developers\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/ (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAra, J., Sik-Lanyi, C. \u0026amp; Kelemen, A. (2024) \u003cem\u003eAccessibility engineering in web evaluation process: a systematic literature review\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eUniv Access Inf Soc\u003c/em\u003e 23, 653\u0026ndash;686. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-00967-2 (Accessed: 26 Mar 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"universal-access-in-the-information-society","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"uais","sideBox":"Learn more about [Universal Access in the Information Society](http://link.springer.com/journal/10209)","snPcode":"10209","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10209/3","title":"Universal Access in the Information Society","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"WCAG, Accessibility, PSBAR, Heuristic Evaluation, WAI, manual testing, semi-automated testing","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7068344/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7068344/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDigital accessibility is essential to providing all users with equitable access to websites and the services they provide. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the state of accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England following the introduction of the United Kingdom Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (PSBAR) which came into force on 23rd September 2020. An heuristic evaluation was carried out using a subset of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.1 during the first half of 2023. Our data was collected by type of council, namely: Metropolitan District, Unitary Authority, London Borough, District and County. A sample size of 57 websites was selected, with 3 pages being tested on each website. Our results from the data show that councils are not fully complying with legislation; however, the number of issues found on each council website was low. The sample councils\u0026rsquo; websites are compliant with roughly 86% of the test points included in our research, thus are meeting the guidelines to some extent. A secondary aim was to explore whether there were any correlations between the number of failures and levels of social deprivation and disability within each council area. Implications for practice and recommendations are shared.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluating the Accessibility of Local Authority Public Facing websites in England","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-29 02:10:25","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7068344/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-21T13:52:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-21T12:05:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"71511166775036580820151885786336714296","date":"2025-10-15T09:38:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-14T16:44:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-16T15:25:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-11T06:14:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Universal Access in the Information Society","date":"2025-07-07T19:14:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"universal-access-in-the-information-society","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"uais","sideBox":"Learn more about [Universal Access in the Information Society](http://link.springer.com/journal/10209)","snPcode":"10209","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10209/3","title":"Universal Access in the Information Society","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ca1d4808-63cb-4ace-a438-ea9b2e7c9c33","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-13T16:03:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7068344","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-025-01269-5","journal":{"identity":"universal-access-in-the-information-society","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Universal Access in the Information Society"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-07 15:58:30","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 7th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-29 02:10:25","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10209-025-01269-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-025-01269-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7068344","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7068344","identity":"rs-7068344","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}