Monitoring results 2020-2021
The Agency for Digital Government tracks the results of the monitored websites and mobile apps of public sector bodies annually. On this page, you can read about the results from the first monitoring period in 2020-2021 and the mandatory report to the European Commission.
When the Agency for Digital Government monitors a website or an app, the public sector body receives an accessibility score ranging from 0-500. The accessibility score reflects the degree of compliance with WCAG 2.1 success criteria at level A and level AA. If an evaluated website or app fails to meet success criteria, the website gets points withdrawn from their total accessibility score.
The Agency for Digital Government divides websites and apps into following categories, based on their accessibility score:
- Fully compliant (476-500)
- Partially compliant (376-475)
- Not compliant (0-375)
Read about the formula for calculating the accessibility score at webtilsyn.dk (in Danish)
The table 'Simplified monitoring' shows the degree of compliance of websites that have undergone simplified monitoring. In total, 192 websites were monitored using the simplified monitoring method.
Simplified monitoring
| Compliance degree | Websites in total (pct.) |
|---|
| Fully compliant |
15 pct. |
| Partially compliant |
65 pct. |
| Not compliant |
20 pct. |
The table 'In-depth monitoring' shows the degree of compliance of websites that have undergone in-depth monitoring. In total, the Agency for Digital Government monitored 21 websites using the in-depth monitoring method.
In-depth monitoring
| Compliance degree | Websites in total (pct.) |
|---|
| Fully compliant |
0 pct. |
| Partially compliant |
81 pct. |
| Not compliant |
19 pct. |
The table 'In-depth monitoring for mobile applications' shows the degree of compliance of mobile apps that have undergone in-depth monitoring. Please note that the Agency for Digital Government only monitored four mobile apps in total during the monitoring period 2020-2021.
In-depth monitoring for mobile apps
| Compliance degree | Websites in total (pct.) |
|---|
| Fully compliant |
25 pct. |
| Partially compliant |
75 pct. |
| Not compliant |
0 pct. |
Top three common accessibility issues
Simplified monitoring
In 2020-2021, the three most frequently failed success criteria for simplified monitoring were:
-
WCAG success criterion 4.1.2 "Name, role, value". This success criterion intends to make it possible to apply assistive technologies on a website.
-
WCAG success criterion 2.4.4 "Link purpose (in context)". This success criterion intends to make sure that the purpose of each link can be determined from the link text alone, or from the link text together with its link context.
-
WCAG success criterion 1.4.3 "Contrast (minimum)" intends to provide enough contrast between text and its background so people with moderately low vision can read it.
Failing these success criteria mainly affects usage with impaired or limited vision, usage with limited vision and usage with limited cognition as a secondary relationship.
The table 'WCAG requirement' shows the degree to which the three success criteria fail across the tested pages that have undergone simplified monitoring (pct.)
| WCAG requirement | Simplified monitoring: average level of error across all tested pages (pct.) |
|---|
| 4.1.2. Name, role, value |
51 pct. |
| 2.4.4. Link purpose (in context) |
34 pct. |
| 1.4.3. Contrast (minimum) |
29 pct. |
In-depth monitoring
In 2020-2021, the three most frequently failing success criteria for in-depth monitoring were:
-
WCAG success criterion 1.3.1 "Info and relationships". This success criterion intends to ensure that, for example, headings are marked correctly and can be read by a screen reader.
-
WCAG success criterion 4.1.2 "Name, role, value". This success criterion intends to make it possible to apply assistive technologies on a website.
-
WCAG success criterion 1.4.11 "Non-text contrast". This success criterion intends to ensure that active user interface components (i.e. controls) and meaningful graphics are distinguishable by people with moderately low vision
The three success criteria primarily affect usage with impaired or limited vision. As is the case for the simplified monitoring.
The table 'WCAG requirement' shows the degree to which the three success criteria fail across the tested pages for the in-depth monitoring (pct.)
| WCAG requirement | In-depth monitoring: average level of error across the tested pages (pct.) |
|---|
| 1.3.1 Info and relationships |
89 pct. |
| 4.1.2 Name, role, value |
81 pct. |
| 1.4.11 Non-text contrast |
80 pct. |
In-depth monitoring for mobile apps
In 2020-2021, the top three most frequently failing success criteria for in-depth monitoring of mobile apps were:
- WCAG success criterion 1.3.4 "Orientation". This success criterion intends to ensure that content displays in the orientation (portrait or landscape) preferred by the user.
- WCAG success criterion 1.4.11 "Non-text contrast". This success criterion intends to ensure that active user interface components (i.e. controls) and meaningful graphics are distinguishable by people with moderately low vision
- WCAG success criterion 1.3.1 "Info and relationships". This success criterion intends to ensure that, for example, headings are marked correctly and can be read by a screen reader.
The failing success criteria for in-depth monitoring for mobile apps especially affect usage with limited cognition and strength. Furthermore, it affects usage with impaired or limited vision.
This table shows the degree to which the three success criteria fail across the tested pages for the in-depth monitoring for mobile apps (pct.) The apps have been tested on both IOS and Android platforms.
| WCAG requirement | In-depth monitoring for apps (IOS): average level of error across the tested pages (pct.) | In-depth monitoring for apps (Android): average level of error across the tested pages (pct.) |
|---|
| 1.3.4 Orientation |
100 pct. |
98 pct. |
| 1.4.11 Non-text contrast |
56 pct. |
83 pct. |
| 1.3.1 Information and relationship |
59 pct. |
66. pct. |