I’ve recently been asked if I can produce an accessibility certificate for a website. Have never been asked about that before, so I was curious and tried to find out what exactly they wanted from me. It turned out that there are some companies that provide services that can certify WCAG compliance. I guess that could totally make sense for customers – let’s get an “official” stamp that our site / app is compliant. I understand the rationale behind it but at the same time I had to express my concerns. In this blog I’ll try to explain why I think these certificates can potentially do more harm than good.
There is no official WCAG certification for websites and apps
WCAG is officially “owned” by Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (opens in new window) that is a part of Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) that is an initiative under World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). So, for me it would make sense somebody in this “chain” or somebody “approved” by them would be the only one that could issue “WCAG certified” certifications. I have never detected that as a service. I suspect why and will describe it later in this post, but let’s try to brainstorm a bit more on the possibilities.
Another possibility would be that “WCAG certificates” could be issued by some kind of international organization for accessibility. It turns out we have one that could be the best choice – International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP, opens in new window) – and I, as it’s member from 2019 can assure you that they are not offering website or mobile app WCAG certificates. They do offer different professional certifications that persons working with accessibility can acquire though (I happen to have their Web Accessibility Specialist). But that has nothing to do with website or mobile app certifications. The IAAP could, in theory, delegate it’s member organizations or individual members the “right” to issue WCAG certification. But then again – it would cause some legal issues and maybe even monopoly. I am not a lawyer, so I am just guessing here but common sense will probably tell you that as well. I am not saying that IAAP members can not issue WCAG certificates, they can if they want to. I am just saying that those certificates are not official but based on the interpretations from that companies or professionals.
So – in theory – I could issue my own “WCAG certificates”, but their value would only be based on my interpretation of the WCAG and my knowledge. Why didn’t I then say that I can issue an certificate? Well, because of my integrity. I will never issue such certificates. Some professionals may, but I believe the whole concept of WCAG certificates to be a bit misleading.
The concept of website accessibility certificates can be a bit misleading
First thing first – there are some vendors that provide such certificates and I am sure most of them also communicate the terms clearly. What terms? Let me try to explain.
Such certificates should be a final product of accessibility evaluations after website or mobile app conforms 100% to WCAG at level AA or maybe even level AAA. I do not have a problem with them, but we should be aware that it’s validity could be revoked the day after. Why? Well – websites and mobile apps are quite dynamic. We could have a totally WCAG conformant webpage today and then it would just take an editor to create a text sentence using poor contrast by mistake – and there you go – the page is not conformant anymore. Rendering certificate invalid at once.
Or – another example – we have a page that conforms to WCAG 2.1 on level AA and then somebody embeds a video with an iframe embed code. If iframe does not have (correct) title it fails WCAG for the whole page. Not even checking the video and it’s captions, transcripts or audio description etc.
So – my point is – certificates like this can be totally worth their price (as long as they really do test all of relevant success criteria), but at the same time their issue date only applies for the state of the site or app at that time and possibly not after it.
I am not saying that such certificates are not worth it, provided clients understand what they actually mean. I’ll try to dig into that in the following sections.
Just a quick note – you can add WCAG conformance logo to your site for free (opens in new window). Should you just use it and be done with that? I beg you not. The fact that the logo is there for free does not mean that your site should not conform to WCAG. It must. You are solely responsible for the use of the logo(s) and therefore you should ensure site/app meets conformance level claimed!
Certificate should provide much more than only a digital stamp
To finally answer the main question suggested in the title we should really ask not who is the provider of the certificate but what does the certificate mean. It’s easy to pay a sum and get a badge. But is the badge worth the price?
Offering WCAG certificates for conformance of webpages or mobile applications could be viable if providers would be clear about their limitations. When clients would understand that after their site or app conforms to WCAG they bear the responsibility for making new changes also to conform to WCAG. So if we try to think about the whole end-to-end process of such certificates we could take the following as an example:
- Provider makes initial audit of the site/app, using – for example – WCAG Evaluation Methodology.
- Client gets the audit where it is also stated what needs to be fixed and suggestions on how to fix it.
- Provider educate client’s designers, developers and content providers about WCAG implementations and what needs to be fixed on the site/app and – also important – how to produce content, components and so on accessibly in the future. People with different disabilities are involved to make sure usability and accessibility are beyond bare WCAG and that end results really work and not only conforms technically.
- Provider re-audits the site/app after it was fixed and if everything is conforming issues the certificate – but only for parts (!) that were actually fixed and tested and confirmed. Accessibility statement and where needed Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) are produced and published.
- Provider is informed about all changes after the certificate is issued and verifies that new changes did not break conformance.
A certificate following this list (simplified here, but I hope my points are clear) would be in my opinion worth pursuing.
So basically – a certificate would actually serve as a long-term investment in accessibility – including testing and development with and for people with different disabilities, assuring future versions of site/app would also be accessible and revoking certificates if the conformance would be revoked as well.
This kind of certificate would require a continuous partnership between provider and client – and not a “set and forget” way of issuing a certificate that is only valid for the version of the site or app at exactly that time.
When researching official sources, I happened to stumble upon a page that discussed exactly the same concept already in 2013 and decided to borrow a quote that reflects almost same points I’ve made on my own;
We need to be thinking about the problem that site accreditation is trying to solve. Is accreditation a way that helps site owners be reassured and can demonstrate to third-parties that their site reaches an acceptable and recognised level of accessibility. Is it a way that customers who have commissioned the site can be sure that the site they have procured reaches an acceptable and recognised level of accessibility? Or, is it a way that people with accessibility needs can recognise and trust that the site will allow them to use it for its intended purpose? The question of trust is a critical one. Especially for disabled web users, people need to know that accreditation means something worthwhile. Accreditation must, in my view, covers as many disabilities as possible. Accreditation must, in my view, deal with the complexity that the dynamic nature of web sites brings (e.g. user generated content, third party content such as ads, which can reduce accessibility.
David Sloan about accessibility accreditation methods (opens in new window).
If you ask me again – would I suggest getting the “WCAG certified” certificate – I would tell you – no, if you do not get a long-term partnership with people with disabilities, together with (trustful) accessibility professionals that can constantly help you stay accessible and educate you to prevent accessibility problems before they happen.
