Why Accessibility Is More Than Just a Technical Requirement
For many people, a website is the primary gateway to information, contracts, and public services. If an image lacks a description, a form cannot be operated via keyboard, or an error message is incomprehensible, that access remains blocked. Digital accessibility aims to prevent such obstacles and enable independent use.
Laws translate this goal into concrete obligations. However, they do not apply to every website in the same way. Different regulations apply to a federal agency than to a small craft business or a large online retailer. The service offered, the operator's location, and the target consumer base can also be relevant to how the requirements are classified.
Consequently, the legal assessment begins by determining which rules apply to a specific service. Practical implementation follows, focusing on the actual user journeys. Simply citing a standard without ensuring reliable access to search, sign-up, purchasing, or contact functions fails to achieve the purpose of accessibility. Voluntary improvements remain worthwhile even when specific statutory obligations do not apply.
Public Sector Bodies and Their Digital Obligations
For public sector bodies in the European Union, the Directive on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies establishes a common framework. Germany implements requirements for federal agencies primarily through the Disability Equality Act and the Accessible Information Technology Ordinance. Supplementary regulations issued by the individual federal states apply to state and local authorities. Therefore, a federal regulation cannot be applied to every municipal website without prior assessment.
As a general rule, federal public sector bodies must ensure their websites and mobile applications are accessible. This applies not only to individual information pages but also to graphical user interfaces and electronically supported administrative processes. Accessibility must be taken into account during the planning, development, procurement, and major revision stages - not merely in response to complaints about a finished website.
The federal regulations also require the provision of visible information regarding the status of accessibility. The accessibility statement must be based on an actual assessment, be published in an accessible manner, and be updated regularly. An easily accessible feedback mechanism enables individuals to report barriers. Depending on the specific public sector body, monitoring and conciliation procedures may also apply. State-level legislation may stipulate its own points of contact, procedures, and wording for these matters.
When private companies are affected
The Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) has significantly expanded the scope of application for private providers. It implements the European Accessibility Act in Germany and applies to specific products and services provided to consumers after June 28, 2025. These include, among others, certain passenger transport services, consumer banking services, e-books, and e-commerce services. Whether a website falls within the scope depends on the service offered rather than its mere existence.
E-commerce refers to digital services provided via websites or mobile applications that are designed to facilitate the conclusion of a consumer contract in response to an individual request from a consumer. A typical online shop may fall into this category. Consequently, a purely editorial corporate website that does not offer a corresponding consumer service is not automatically classified in the same way as a shop featuring user accounts, a shopping cart, and payment processing.
Micro-enterprises offering services are generally exempt from the BFSG. Under the Act, micro-enterprises are defined as companies with fewer than ten employees and an annual turnover or balance sheet total of no more than two million euros. Other exceptions, transitional arrangements, and the exception regarding disproportionate burden or fundamental alteration may also be relevant. Such exceptions do not apply across the board but are subject to specific conditions. In cases of doubt, the specific service should be legally assessed rather than relying solely on company size or industry. The law also stipulates different obligations and exceptions for products.
Four principles set the direction
European regulations characterize digital offerings by four fundamental attributes: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. These terms link legal requirements to everyday usage. They focus not on specific technology, but rather on whether diverse users can access content and functions using their respective devices and assistive tools.
"Perceivable," for instance, means that information is not conveyed solely through color or sound. "Operable" means that navigation, dialogs, and forms function without a mouse. "Understandable" relates to language, orientation, and predictable behavior. An offering is "robust" if browsers and assistive technologies can reliably interpret its structure and states.
None of these principles can replace another. A high-contrast button is of little use if it cannot be accessed via the keyboard. A technically well-labeled form remains problematic if no one understands what information is required. Effective accessibility therefore views design, content, and technology as integral parts of the same user experience. This approach also allows conflicting individual measures to be identified at an early stage.
Securing key user journeys through the website
An assessment should begin with the tasks for which people visit the website. In an online shop, these might include product search, selection, the shopping cart, login, payment, and confirmation. For a public authority, booking an appointment, submitting an application, and making inquiries could be critical. If only the homepage is tested, significant barriers within multi-step processes may go undetected.
All functions must be accessible via keyboard and operable in a logical sequence. The current focus indicator must remain clearly visible. Menus, modal windows, and selection fields must not trap users or unexpectedly shift them to a different location. Furthermore, users relying on screen readers require understandable names, roles, and status updates.
Identification, authentication, security, and payment warrant special attention. The BFSG explicitly lists these functions for electronic commerce services. From the user's perspective, the process does not end at the boundary of an embedded payment service. From a legal standpoint, however, a distinction must be made regarding which service provider is responsible for which part. Operators should clearly define their own obligations, vet procured components, and contractually establish how errors are to be rectified and changes announced. An inaccessible two-factor authentication process can render the entire service unusable.
Make content, forms, and media easy to understand
Clear headings and a logical sequence benefit all readers. Links should indicate their destination rather than simply being labeled "here" or "more." Images require appropriate text alternatives if they convey information. Purely decorative images should not burden assistive technologies with meaningless file names or descriptions.
Forms require visible and programmatically associated labels. Mandatory fields, input formats, and errors should not be indicated by color alone. A good error message identifies the affected field and explains how to correct the input. After submission, it must be clear whether the transmission was successful and what the next steps are.
Videos and audio recordings may require subtitles, transcripts, or audio descriptions, depending on the content and context of use. Automatically generated subtitles are a starting point, but names and technical terms are often misidentified. Downloadable documents are also part of the offering. An inaccessible PDF can completely block an otherwise accessible application process. An accessible HTML version is often easier to use and maintain.
Use standards effectively as a basis for testing
Legal regulations often define objectives and refer to recognized or harmonized standards for technical details. For public sector bodies, the European standard EN 301 549 serves as a key foundation. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) shape many of the requirements for web content within this standard. However, the specific version that is legally binding depends on the applicable regulatory framework.
An audit report should therefore clearly state which standard and version were used for testing. A blanket statement of "WCAG-compliant" conveys little meaning without information on the scope of the audit. It does not specify which pages, states, documents, and devices were examined. Nor does a conformance level indicate whether core business processes were fully tested.
Standards establish a common language for requirements and errors. However, they do not replace the assessment of the specific offering. A single success criterion number does not tell an editorial team what understandable alternative text looks like. Conversely, a subjectively pleasant user experience must not lead to the omission of verifiable technical requirements. Good reports therefore link the violation of a rule to its specific impact.
Combining automated and manual tests
Automated testing tools quickly identify specific errors, such as missing labels, invalid structures, or certain contrast issues. They are useful for recurring checks during development. However, they cannot answer many crucial questions: Does the focus order make sense? Does the alternative text describe the essential information? Is a complex process actually understandable?
Manual testing fills this gap. This includes full keyboard navigation, checks at high magnification levels, and use with a screen reader. Different browsers and devices may reveal additional issues. Testing should cover not only standard pages but also error scenarios, confirmations, dynamic content, and time-limited processes.
Testing with people with disabilities reveals which obstacles have the greatest impact on daily life. Such tests should complement technical assessments and take place early enough for insights to be incorporated into the design and workflows. A single individual cannot speak for all disabilities and usage situations; diverse perspectives provide a more robust picture. Fair compensation and accessible test materials are essential prerequisites for participation.
Clarify responsibilities across publishing and procurement
Accessibility is only maintained if responsibilities are clearly defined. Editorial, design, development, legal, and procurement teams all influence different parts of the website. New campaign pages, components, or documents can reintroduce known barriers. Binding requirements and accessible points of contact help resolve issues at the source.
When procuring products, vendors should provide more than just a general self-declaration. More meaningful are concrete proofs regarding the product, known limitations, and agreed-upon response times for corrections. An accessible demo can demonstrate how key tasks function. Contracts should also specify what happens regarding updates, new features, and changes to integrated services.
Following publication, regular checks and a functional reporting channel are required. Feedback should be acknowledged, assessed for its impact, and addressed in a transparent manner. For public sector bodies, the feedback mechanism holds specific legal significance. Private providers also benefit by gaining early insights into barriers that technical checks may have missed. A clear escalation path should be established for particularly critical obstacles.
Legal certainty begins with a usable service.
The legal framework for digital accessibility comprises several levels. Public bodies, private companies, and various services do not automatically fall under the same regulations. A reliable classification therefore takes into account the operator, target audience, function, and location of the service. Years in page titles or outdated project assumptions do not provide a suitable basis for this.
Following classification, implementation should focus on the users' key tasks. Perceivable content, full keyboard operability, understandable forms, and robust technical structures combine to create an accessible service. Testing based on real-world workflows reveals whether these qualities hold true not just on paper, but in everyday use.
Accessibility becomes a lasting feature when it is integrated into decisions regarding content, design, development, and procurement. A statement or a certification seal can document this work but cannot replace it. The decisive benchmark remains whether people with various disabilities can find information and use digital services independently, reliably, and without avoidable barriers. This benchmark combines legal diligence with a superior digital offering.
Authoritative sources
- Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG), §§ 1 to 3
- BFSGV, § 19 regarding electronic commerce services
- Act on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (BGG), § 12a
- BITV 2.0, §§ 2, 3, and 7
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies
- Federal Competence Centre: FAQ on electronic commerce services
- Federal Competence Centre: Current FAQ on the Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG)