Industry

Public Sector & Education

A standards-anchored, independent baseline before the tender.

Complex legacy systems, high accessibility obligations, and real citizen impact. A credible compliance-plus-usability wedge — pursued selectively and with patience.

Why it fits

  • Legacy citizen services with deep IA/flow problems and a low usability baseline.
  • Statutory accessibility obligations — the sharpest, most budgeted trigger.
  • Data-protection and transparency duties are structural.
  • Digitalisation mandates (e-government) create baseline-audit demand.

When an audit makes sense

Buying behaviour

  • Digital/e-government leads, accessibility officers
  • Procurement offices; formal tendering, long cycles
  • Partnering with a framework-listed vendor is often the realistic entry

Regulatory context

  • Germany: BITV 2.0 and public-sector accessibility duties; EN 301 549.
  • Austria: Web Accessibility Act (WZG) for public bodies; DSG + GDPR.
  • Switzerland: BehiG/BehiV duties for federal services.
  • WCAG 2.2 AA as the practical common denominator.

How we position

  • Accessibility as compliance and citizen impact, evidenced against the exact standard.
  • Neutrality and documentation rigour — public buyers need defensible evidence.
  • An independent baseline before the tender.

Recommended services

Direct answers

Which standard do you assess accessibility against?

Against WCAG 2.2 AA and EN 301 549, mapped to BITV 2.0 or WZG/BehiG by country — with defensible, documented evidence.

Can you participate in a tender?

Depending on the process, directly or via partnership with a listed vendor. We provide the independent, standards-anchored baseline.

Clarity about your system — with evidence.

A structured, independent audit with a prioritised, buildable path. No credentials, NDA before any confidential access.