Service · Accessible websites
Accessible means well built.
Since 28 June 2025, the Austrian Accessibility Act has applied additional requirements to certain digital services. We begin with a non-binding technical first assessment; borderline cases should be reviewed legally. We then work on keyboard and screen-reader use, readable contrast and a clear structure.
- Tested against WCAG 2.2, level AA
- Checked with keyboard and screen reader
- No overlay widget
- A prioritised report, not a defect list
At a glance
The short answer first
Four facts about digital accessibility in Austria – without the legal fog.
Who is affected
Specific services
The act covers certain services in areas including e-commerce, banking, passenger transport, telecommunications, e-books and audiovisual media. Whether a specific offer is covered depends on its function, the provider and any applicable exemption.
Since when
28 June 2025
Services provided from that day onwards must meet the requirements. Market surveillance lies with the Sozialministeriumservice.
The standard
WCAG 2.2, level AA
The technical requirements rest on the European standard EN 301 549, which in turn builds on the WCAG.
Cost
After initial review
Audit and implementation are scoped separately. After an initial review, you receive a transparent fixed price; without examining the site, we do not quote a misleading figure.
Self-test · 1 minute
Does the law apply to your business?
Five questions following the criteria in the act. This is not legal advice – it tells you whether a closer look is worthwhile.
What “accessible” actually means
Accessibility sounds like special treatment, but it is mostly just good craft. Six points make the biggest difference – and none of them demands a different design.
Operable by keyboard
Every function must be reachable without a mouse – and you have to see where you are. A visible focus outline is not a blemish; it is the signpost for everyone navigating by tab.
Structure that holds
Headings in the right order, lists as lists, buttons as buttons. A screen reader reads that structure aloud – and search engines read exactly the same one.
Enough contrast
Text needs at least 4.5:1 against its background, large text and controls 3:1. That is calculable, not a matter of taste – the demo below shows the difference.
Images with alternative text
Every meaningful image needs a description of what can be seen – not “image1.jpg”. Purely decorative images deliberately get no text at all, so they do not get in the way.
Forms that think along
Labels tied to their field, and error messages that say what to do. A field with a red outline and no text is a dead end for people who cannot see the colour.
Language that carries
Short sentences, explained terminology, meaningful link text instead of “click here”. That helps with reading difficulties, when in a hurry and on a phone on the underground – so almost everyone.
See for yourself
Contrast is not a matter of taste
The same button in four colour combinations. The figure underneath is the calculated contrast ratio – the same arithmetic that testing tools apply.
-
Light grey on white
2,5:1 insufficient contrast
Looks understated, but is simply unreadable for many people.
-
Mid grey on white
4,5:1 meets AA
The classic borderline colour – just about sufficient.
-
Our green on cream
6,6:1 meets AA
The colour pairing used on this website.
-
White on our green
7,5:1 meets AAA
The same base colour with light text on it: a little more headroom, level AAA.
Calculated with the WCAG 2.2 formula for relative luminance. Thresholds: 4.5:1 for text, 3:1 for large text and for graphics and user interface components.
Decision aid
Overlay widget or real implementation?
Some vendors promise accessibility by script: one line of code, an icon in the bottom right, done. Here is the direct comparison, so you can decide for yourself.
| Criterion | Overlay widget | Implemented in the code |
|---|---|---|
| What happens | A script alters the page in the browser after the fact | The page is built correctly in the first place |
| Screen readers | Users bring their own familiar software – the overlay tends to get in its way | Works with the software people already use |
| Effort | Installed in minutes | One-off work on structure, colours and forms |
| Legally | Does not cover the requirements – responsibility stays with the provider | Testable against WCAG 2.2 AA and documentable |
| Side effect on SEO | None – the structure stays as it was | Clean structure also helps search engines and AI assistants |
| Ongoing cost | A monthly subscription, indefinitely | None – you pay for the work, not for its continued existence |
How we work
Four stages. You always know what we are working on and what it gets you.
Taking stock
We test your website against WCAG 2.2 AA – with tools, but mostly by hand: tabbing through it, listening to it with a screen reader, recalculating contrast. You get a list of the barriers, sorted by impact.
Working out what matters
We establish with you what is obligatory and what is worth doing voluntarily – and whether fixing or rebuilding works out cheaper. With sites that have grown over years, that is not a rhetorical question.
Implementation
Structure, focus, contrast, forms, alternative text. We work in the code, not with a widget. Whatever changes visually we show you beforehand – it is usually less than you fear.
Evidence and handover
A final check, a report you can produce on request, and a short briefing: what your team needs to watch when maintaining content, so the accessibility holds.
Honestly: Accessibility is never “finished”. Every new article, every new image, every new form can break it again. That is why we hand over no certificate at the end, but show your team what matters when maintaining the site – that lasts longer than any badge.
The law in figures
Four figures that come up in every discussion of the Austrian Accessibility Act – here with the source behind them.
Frequently asked questions about accessibility
Does my website have to be accessible?
A website that merely provides information about a company and has a contact form is not covered. Anyone claiming across the board that “every website must now be accessible” is selling through fear rather than benefit.
Source: RIS: Barrierefreiheitsgesetz § 2 (opens in a new tab)
Is there an exemption for small companies?
The exemption expressly covers services only. Anyone placing products on the market cannot rely on it.
Source: RIS: Barrierefreiheitsgesetz § 6 (opens in a new tab)
What happens if the requirements are not met?
Source: RIS: Barrierefreiheitsgesetz § 36 (opens in a new tab)
Which standard is used for testing?
Level AA is the usual target: level A alone is not sufficient, and level AAA is neither required nor sensibly achievable for much content.
Does accessibility help SEO as well?
There is no automatic ranking advantage, and anyone promising one is overstating it. The connection is indirect but reliable: well-structured content is easier to grasp for people and machines alike.
Is an accessibility widget on the site enough?
So we do not install overlays; we work on structure, contrast and operability – where the problem actually arises.
How can I tell for myself whether a site has barriers?
Second test: zoom the page to 200 per cent in your browser. Does everything stay readable and operable, or does the text overlap? Both checks take five minutes and replace no audit – but they tell you whether one is needed.
Terms related to this service
Technical terms that appear on this page – explained in one sentence in our glossary.