A structure you can copy, and the two gaps it leaves
An accessibility statement template, with the parts you have to supply marked.
Templates are useful and oversold. About two thirds of a statement is genuinely reusable: headings, the feedback section, the escalation paragraph, the closing. The remaining third is the reason the document exists, and no template can write it, because it describes what happened when somebody tested your website. Here is the structure, with the gaps marked clearly rather than filled with confident filler.
Copy the structure. Do not copy anybody's findings, including ours.
The template
Copy it, paste it, and resist the urge to delete a bracket because you do not have the answer yet. An unanswered bracket is information; a deleted one becomes a claim.
Square brackets mark what only you can supply. Two of them need testing behind them; the rest are facts about your organisation.
Accessibility statement for [exact address]
This statement applies to [service], operated by [legal name]. It was last reviewed on [date].
We want everyone to be able to [the three things people come to do on your site], including people who use a keyboard only, a screen reader, magnification or speech input.
How accessible this service is. This service [fully conforms / partially conforms / does not conform] to [WCAG 2.2 level AA]. Conformance was assessed by [internal review / external testing] on [dates], combining [automated checks] with [manual testing using keyboard only and screen readers on desktop and mobile]. The pages assessed were [list].
What is not accessible at the moment. [For each open barrier: what it is, in plain language; who it affects; what the alternative is today; when it will be resolved.] If there are none, say so here and expect to be checked.
How to report a problem. Write to [address] describing the page, what you were trying to do and what happened. We reply within [number] working days and tell you what we will do and when.
Enforcement. If you are not satisfied with our answer you can contact [national enforcement body / provincial route / relevant authority].
Preparation of this statement. This statement was prepared on [date] by [who]. It is reviewed [rhythm] and reissued when the service changes.
Which brackets are easy and which are not
| Bracket | Where the answer comes from | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|
| Exact address, legal name | Your records | Trivial |
| Review date | Your calendar | Trivial |
| What people come to do | Your own knowledge of the site | Easy |
| Conformance level | A test, not a decision | Requires testing |
| Assessment method and dates | Whoever did the testing | Requires testing |
| Pages assessed | The test scope | Requires testing |
| Open barriers and alternatives | The findings | Requires testing |
| Feedback address and reply time | Your operations | Easy, but must be true |
| Enforcement body | Your jurisdiction | Easy |
Four of the nine cannot be filled honestly without somebody opening the site with a keyboard and a screen reader. That is the whole argument of this page, and it is why we do not sell a template.
How templates go wrong in practice
Five failures, none of them malicious, all of them common enough that we see them most weeks.
The brackets get deleted rather than filled. Somebody removes the placeholder for open barriers because there is nothing to put there yet, and the published statement silently claims there are none.
The conformance level is chosen from a dropdown. Full conformance sounds better, so it is selected, and the organisation has now certified a fact about software nobody examined.
The reply time is copied. Five working days appears in the template, gets published, and nobody tells the person who owns the mailbox — which they may not know they own.
The enforcement paragraph is left generic. A statement published in Germany pointing to a body that does not handle German complaints is a small error with a disproportionate effect on credibility.
Nobody dates it again. The template is filled once, the site changes, and the document quietly becomes a historical record of an afternoon in March.
When a template really is enough
There is an honest case for it, and it is worth stating rather than pretending everyone needs an audit. If your site is a handful of static pages, no forms beyond a contact address, no transactions, no login, and somebody competent has genuinely worked through it with a keyboard and a screen reader, then filling this template carefully produces a truthful statement.
The moment there is a checkout, a booking flow, an account area or a form that does anything more than send an email, the two testing brackets stop being fillable from memory. Not because the law changes, but because nobody knows what a screen reader announces on their own checkout until they listen to it.
What changes by jurisdiction
The structure holds in all three markets we cover; three brackets change.
The standard. WCAG 2.2 level AA in the EU and UK by convention. Ontario's legal reference is WCAG 2.0 level AA under O. Reg. 191/11, described on the Ontario page, and testing at 2.2 exceeds it.
The escalation route. The national enforcement body in the EU, the provincial route in Ontario, the Equality Act path in Britain, set out on the UK page.
Who prepared it. Naming an external tester and the company that signed is optional in the text and decisive in effect, as explained on the requirements page.
Filling the gaps properly
The audit exists to produce exactly the four bracketed answers this template cannot supply: the conformance level, the method and dates, the pages assessed, and the open barriers with their alternatives. Automated pass first, then manual testing with keyboard and screen reader across your real flows, at 400 percent zoom and at narrow widths, including anything behind a login you want covered.
What arrives is the findings report your developers work from, the statement written from those findings and signed by the company established in your jurisdiction, a public verification code, a hosted feedback channel, monthly re-testing and five years of records. 690 € a year for the European Union, 890 CAD for Canada, 1,290 € for three domains and six languages, 1,990 € for all three regions. Five business days, seven days free with no card.
Wording that survives contact with a reader
Templates supply neutral phrasing, and neutral phrasing is often weaker than it looks. Four substitutions do most of the work.
Instead of “we are committed to accessibility”, say what was tested and when. Commitment is unfalsifiable, which means it carries no information. A date and a method carry a great deal.
Instead of “some content may not be fully accessible”, name it. The vague version signals that somebody suspected a problem and did not look. The specific version signals the opposite.
Instead of “please contact us if you experience difficulties”, give the address and the reply time. The first is decoration, the second is the mechanism the law requires.
Instead of “reviewed periodically”, state the rhythm and the last date. Periodically means never, and every reader knows it.
Publishing the statement accessibly
An avoidable irony: statements published as image-based files, behind a download, or as a page whose headings were chosen for size. The document that describes your accessibility is the one document guaranteed to be opened by people using assistive technology, and it fails more often than the pages it describes.
Publish it as an ordinary page with real headings, at a stable address, linked from the footer of every page, with the feedback address as text rather than an image. Then apply the template's own first check to it: open it with a keyboard and see whether you can reach the contact address without a mouse.
A worked comparison
The same paragraph, written three ways, on the same fictional shop. It is the clearest demonstration of what testing adds.
Template, unfilled. “This website partially conforms to WCAG. We are committed to improving accessibility and welcome feedback.” Nothing here is false, and nothing is usable. A reader learns that the organisation has heard of the topic.
Template, filled from memory. “This website conforms to WCAG 2.1 level AA. Our development team follows accessibility best practice.” Now there is a claim, made by people who did not test, about a version of the standard that is no longer current. It is worse than the first version, because it can be disproved.
Written from findings. “This site partially conforms to WCAG 2.2 level AA. Conformance was assessed by external testing on 6 to 10 March 2026, with automated checks and manual testing using keyboard only and screen readers on desktop and mobile, across the home page, a product page, the cart, the full checkout and the contact form. Three issues remain open: the gallery cannot be operated by keyboard, with a text list of the same images below it; two size guides exist only as images and are being replaced by April; the delivery date picker announces dates unclearly, with a plain text field offered in the same step.”
The third version is longer by a hundred words and is the only one that answers a question. It also happens to be the only one that could be written after somebody spent five days on the site, which is the point.
Template questions
Can I use a template?
As a structure, yes. As content, no: the two paragraphs that matter describe your site, and a template cannot know them.
What is the difference between a template and a generator?
A template is a blank form you fill in. A generator fills it in for you from what you type. Neither tests anything.
Is a template legal?
A template is neither legal nor illegal. What matters is whether the finished statement is true.
Which parts can a template safely provide?
Headings, the feedback section, the enforcement paragraph and the closing. Roughly two thirds of the page.
Which parts can it never provide?
How the requirements are met, and which parts do not conform. Both require testing.
Do public sector bodies have a prescribed template?
In the EU, public sector bodies follow a model prescribed under the earlier directive. Private operators follow Annex V content, not a fixed layout.
Should I copy a competitor's statement?
Their statement describes their barriers. Copying it publishes claims about your site that nobody checked.
How long should the finished document be?
One page. Templates get long because they quote the standard.
Where do I publish it?
At a stable address linked from the footer of every page.
What if I have several sites?
Each site needs a statement that describes it. Three domains are covered by our EU Plus plan.
Can I write it myself after an audit?
Yes, and some clients do. We provide the findings and the wording; the publication is yours.
What does a signed statement cost?
690 € a year for the EU, 890 CAD for Canada, 1,290 € for three domains, 1,990 € for all three regions.
How long does it take?
Five business days from a complete form.
Is there a free trial?
Seven days, no card, valid from day one.
Do you provide the template itself?
The structure is on this page, free to reuse. What we sell is the testing behind the two paragraphs it cannot fill.
Do I need a verification code?
Not required, but it lets anyone confirm the document without contacting you.
How often should it be updated?
On material change and at least annually. Our plan re-tests monthly.
Where do I start?
Run the free scan, then decide whether the template is enough for your situation.