A worked example, annotated line by line
An accessibility statement example, and why each line is there.
Most published statements are copies of copies: confident, undated, and describing nothing. This page shows a complete example for a mid-sized online shop, then takes it apart paragraph by paragraph to explain what each element is doing, which law asks for it, and what an inspector reads it as. Use it as a structure. Do not use the words: they describe a site that is not yours.
Example is free to reuse as a structure. The signed version comes from a test of your site.
The example, in full
Read it once as a user would, then read the annotations below.
Accessibility statement for shop.example.eu
This statement applies to the online shop at shop.example.eu, operated by Example Retail BV. It was last reviewed on 12 March 2026.
We want everyone to be able to browse, buy and get help on this site, including people who use a keyboard only, a screen reader, magnification, or speech input.
How accessible this site is. This site partially conforms to WCAG 2.2 level AA. Conformance was assessed by external testing on 6 to 10 March 2026, combining automated checks with manual testing using keyboard only and screen readers on desktop and mobile. The pages tested were the home page, one category page, one product page, the cart, the full checkout, account creation and login, the contact form and the legal pages.
What is not accessible at the moment. Three issues are open. The product image gallery cannot be operated by keyboard alone; a text list of the same images is available below the gallery. Two PDF size guides are not tagged and are being replaced by HTML tables, planned for April 2026. In the checkout, the delivery date picker announces dates in an unclear order with some screen readers; a plain text date field is offered as an alternative in the same step.
How to report a problem. Write to accessibility@example.eu describing the page, what you were trying to do and what happened. We reply within five working days and tell you what we will do and when.
Enforcement. If you are not satisfied with our answer you can contact the national enforcement body for the European Accessibility Act in your country.
Preparation of this statement. This statement was prepared on 12 March 2026 by Europe Services SE following external testing. It is reviewed every month and reissued when the site changes.
Line by line, and what each line does
| Line in the example | What it is doing | Why it is there |
|---|---|---|
| Names the exact address and the operator | Defines scope | A statement about “our websites” covers none of them precisely |
| Gives a review date | Makes it falsifiable | An undated statement is read as an old statement |
| Lists the technologies users bring | Sets the frame | Shows the test considered real usage, not just markup |
| Says partially conforms | States the honest level | Credible, and defensible if one barrier is later found |
| Names dates, method and pages | Turns claim into evidence | This is the part an inspector checks first |
| Names three open issues | Discloses | Annex V asks for the non-conforming parts |
| Offers an alternative for each | Provides a route | An open barrier with a workaround is a manageable situation |
| Gives a reachable address and a reply time | Feedback mechanism | Required, and the first thing a complainant tests |
| Points to the enforcement body | Escalation route | Expected in the EU model |
| Says who prepared it and how often it is reviewed | Accountability | External preparation carries more weight than self-assessment |
What to change for Ontario and for the United Kingdom
The skeleton holds in all three jurisdictions. Three things change.
The standard cited
WCAG 2.2 AA in the EU and UK by convention. In Ontario the legal reference is WCAG 2.0 level AA under O. Reg. 191/11, and testing at 2.2 simply exceeds it.
The escalation route
National enforcement body in the EU. In Ontario, the accessibility compliance reporting route. In the UK, the complaint path under the Equality Act.
Who signs
Europe Services SE for the EU, REP27 LTD for the UK, Goldman Services INC for Ontario, each established where the obligation sits.
The Ontario specifics are on the AODA page, the federal picture on the Accessible Canada Act page, and the British procurement angle on the UK page.
Four rewrites that make a weak statement strong
From “we are committed to accessibility” to “this site partially conforms to WCAG 2.2 AA, tested on these dates”. Commitment is a feeling. Conformance is a measurement with a date attached.
From “if you have difficulties, contact us” to “write to this address, we answer in five working days”. The first sentence is decoration. The second is a mechanism, and it is what the law asks for.
From silence about problems to three named issues with alternatives. Silence reads as either perfection or ignorance, and nobody believes perfection.
From “reviewed periodically” to “reviewed monthly, last reissued on this date”. Periodically means never. A date means somebody is responsible.
What we deliver, compared with this example
The example above is the shape. What arrives when you order is the same shape filled with facts about your site: the pages we actually opened, the assistive technology we actually used, the barriers we actually found, and the alternatives you actually offer. It is signed by the company established in your jurisdiction, dated, and issued with a public code that anyone can verify without contacting you.
Alongside it you receive the findings report your developers work from, the hosted feedback channel, monthly re-testing, and five years of record keeping. The statement is the page the public reads; the rest is what answers a letter from an authority.
If you want to see how the underlying testing is done before ordering, the audit page describes the five days in detail, and the generator page explains why automated text cannot produce any of this.
Two shorter examples for smaller cases
A single-page booking site with no open barriers
When a site is small and genuinely clean, the statement gets shorter, not longer. It names the address and the operator, gives the review date, states that the site conforms to WCAG 2.2 level AA, says when and how that was tested and which flows were covered, gives the feedback address with a reply time, and names the company that prepared it. Six sentences, no exceptions section because there are no exceptions, and no promises about the future because none are needed. A statement like that is unusual, and precisely because it is unusual it should carry the testing detail: anyone reading a claim of full conformance will look for the evidence line first.
A large site mid-way through remediation
The opposite case needs discipline of a different kind. The temptation is to list forty findings and look thorough. It has the opposite effect: nobody reads forty, and the important ones disappear among the trivial. Group them instead. Three or four themes, each written as a sentence a user understands — “our filter controls cannot yet be operated by keyboard”, “some older product documents are not tagged” — each with the alternative available now and the quarter in which it will be resolved. Keep the full list in the findings report, which is where developers work, and keep the statement readable by the person it is written for.
One last practical point, because it comes up in almost every handover: decide now who owns the document. Not the agency that built the site, not the developer who left in June, but a named person inside the organisation who receives the monthly result, reads the two lines that changed, and forwards them to whoever fixes things. The legal obligation sits with the operator of the service, and an obligation without an owner is the one that is discovered by a complaint rather than by a calendar.
Where statements go wrong after publication
A statement is correct on the day it is written and starts decaying immediately. The theme gets updated, a new payment provider drops in an iframe, marketing adds a pop-up, and the document on the site still describes March. Three months later it is not merely outdated: it is a published claim that no longer matches the service, which is a worse position than having written nothing.
There are two ways to handle that. Either somebody owns a calendar reminder and re-tests the whole site each quarter, which works in organisations with a dedicated team and fails everywhere else, or the testing is automatic and monthly and the document is reissued when the result changes. We do the second, because it is the only version that survives a busy year.
Questions about writing the document
Can I copy an accessibility statement from another website?
You can copy the structure. You cannot copy the content, because the content describes a different website: different barriers, different alternatives, different dates.
What does a good statement look like?
Short, specific and dated. It names the service, says what was tested and how, lists what still fails, offers an alternative for each, and gives a contact that answers.
How long should it be?
One page. Statements that run to five pages usually do so because they quote the standard instead of describing the site.
Should I claim full conformance?
Only if it is true and you can show the testing. Partial conformance with a named list of exceptions is the normal, credible answer.
What is the difference between full and partial conformance?
Full means every applicable criterion is met. Partial means some are not, and those are listed with reasons and alternatives.
Do I have to name the standard?
Yes. Say which version and level: WCAG 2.2 level AA, or WCAG 2.0 level AA where Ontario law applies.
Do I have to say who tested it?
The Directive does not force it, but naming the tester and the date is what turns a claim into evidence, and buyers look for it.
What should the feedback section say?
Where to write, what to include, and how quickly you answer. Then answer in that time.
Where should the statement live?
At a stable address linked from the footer of every page, so it survives redesigns and can be cited.
How often should it be updated?
Whenever the site changes materially, and at least annually. Our plan re-tests monthly and re-issues when something moves.
What about a statement for an app?
Same structure, different technical references. If the app delivers a covered service in the EU, it needs one.
Should I mention the law by name?
Yes, the one that applies to you: the EAA and its national implementation, the AODA in Ontario, or the Equality Act in the UK.
Can the statement be in English only?
If your consumers are in Germany, an English-only statement is a weak answer. Serve the languages you sell in.
What is the single most common mistake?
A claim of full conformance on a site with an unlabelled checkout button. It converts a fixable technical issue into a credibility problem.
Does a verification code matter?
It is what lets a buyer or an authority confirm the document without calling you. Ours is public and checkable by anyone.
Can I see one of your real documents?
Yes, there is a specimen record on the site with a working code, and the public register lists everything we have signed.
How much does a signed statement cost?
690 € a year for the EU, 890 CAD for Canada, 1,290 € for three domains and six languages, 1,990 € for all three regions.
How quickly can I have one?
Five business days from a complete form, with seven days free and no card while you decide.