Accessibility statement page

An 'Accessibility statement' page is a public page on which you honestly state: what accessibility level you aim for and which standard you conform to (e.g. WCAG 2.1 AA), what has already been done, what LIMITATIONS are known and what you are working on, as well as HOW a user with an accessibility problem can report it and get help (contact, response time). Such a page is an expected practice and often part of EAA/ADA documentation. Honestly about the role, this is key: an accessibility statement is a DISCLOSURE and a feedback channel, NOT a legal shield and NOT proof of conformance by itself. It does not make the site accessible and does not protect against claims if there is no real work behind it. Its value is in honesty: if you write 'fully accessible' when it is not so, the statement turns into a risk (a misleading claim). So we write truthfully, including an honest section on known limitations — that is itself a sign of good faith. Honestly about the basis: a substantive statement relies on the real state (audit 803) — otherwise it is just nice words. Honestly about the contact: the feedback channel must actually work (someone answers) — otherwise it is formal. Honestly about currency: the statement must be updated when things change. Honestly about the effect: openness, trust, fulfilling an expected practice; but it is not a replacement for technical accessibility. Honestly about access: data on conformance and contacts are needed. An important boundary: this is a statement page; the audit is 803, the VPAT is 830, legal assessment is a lawyer's. Picture this: instead of 'not a word about accessibility and nowhere to report a problem' — an honest page with the status and a working contact. The base price starts from 8,000 ₽ (relies on audit/state data).

• The site has not a word about accessibility and no feedback channel.
• A user with an accessibility problem has nowhere to report it.
• There is a temptation to write 'fully accessible' — and that is misleading.
• The statement is outdated and does not reflect the real state.

• A page with the accessibility level/standard (e.g. WCAG 2.1 AA)
• An honest section on known limitations and plans
• A working feedback channel (contact, response time)
• Reliance on the real state (audit 803)
• A clear statement of boundaries (disclosure/contact, not a legal shield or proof)
• A recommendation on updating when things change
• Agreeing the wording with you
• Handover and review with you

• An honest public accessibility page
• A working channel for accessibility requests
• An expected practice fulfilled (part of EAA/ADA documentation)
• Openness and trust (not a replacement for technical accessibility)

• We take conformance data (audit 803) and contacts; collect access
• We write an honest statement with status, limitations and a contact channel
• We agree the wording, explain boundaries and updating, review with you

• Will an accessibility statement protect against claims/lawsuits?

  By itself — no. It is an honest disclosure and a feedback channel, not a legal shield and not proof of conformance. It is useful and expected (part of EAA/ADA documentation) and demonstrates good faith, but what protects is not the 'paper' but the real accessibility work it describes. The legal side is assessed by a lawyer.

• Can we write that the site is 'fully accessible'?

  You should not, if it is not so — and we do not write that. A 'fully accessible' statement with barriers present is a misleading claim that itself becomes a risk. The honest approach is to state the standard, what has been done, and openly list the known limitations. It is honesty that makes the statement valuable rather than harmful.

• Is just a page with text enough?

  The page is needed, but its value is in two things: truthfulness (reliance on the real state, audit 803) and a working feedback channel (someone actually answers requests, not a 'contact for show'). A formal statement without real work and without an answering channel is empty. We do it honestly.