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

Relevant case studies

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.