Accessibility statement

Draft based on machine findings and manual checkpoints

This is an example

Tallene og funnene under er fra et oppdiktet nettsted, men the template is the real one - this is what the statement looks like when you test your own website. The text under each breached criterion is the one we write for you, ready to paste into uustatus.no.

Get the same statement for your website

Accessibility statement UTKAST

Automatically generated draft from the scan. The binding the statement for the public sector is published via uustatus.no - use this as your basis and fill in the fields marked [ … ].

About this statement

Organisation
[Virksomhetens navn]
Website / solution
https://demo.kommune.no
Standard
WCAG 2.1 level AA (the Norwegian ICT accessibility regulations)
Vurderingsmetode
Machine findings from this tool + manual assessment of criteria marked «Should be checked» or «Needs manual review»
Dato for vurdering
2026-07-27
Pages vurdert
3

Conformance status - ready for professional review

The website is partially compliant with the Norwegian accessibility regulations for ICT.

9 of 48 criteria in the regulations are breached.

Before you publish: 26 criteria cannot be decided by machine and must be assessed by you before the statement is published. The number above may change once they are.

  1. Sign in at uustatus.no using your organisation access.
  2. Go through the breached criteria below - they are grouped by principle, as in the form.
  3. Copy the text we have written into the field «Content that breaches the criterion», and correct it where you know more than we do.
  4. Answer the questions under «Criteria you must assess yourselves». Then the statement is complete.

The status levels are the Norwegian authority's own: samsvar (all relevant level A and AA criteria are met), delvis samsvar (de fleste er oppfylt), not compliant (the majority are not met). 1.2.4 Captions (Live) is not part of the Norwegian regulations, and is therefore not among the 48 criteria.

What the breaches mean for users

The breaches we found particularly affect these groups:

The groups are derived from the actual findings, not from a generic list. Each criterion below has its own sentence on the impact for users.

Content that breaches the criteria

Bare verifiable findings appear here: machine rules, our own rules, behaviour tests in the browser and tests across pages.

Prinsipp 1. Perceivable

1.1.1 Non-text Content Level A

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. Images must have alternate text. The image has no alt attribute, or an empty alt without being marked as decorative. Affected pages: /kontakt. Impact on users: Users who have the page read aloud lose the information the image carries — at worst the screen reader announces the file name instead.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× Images must have alternate text machine evidence
    <img src="radhus.jpg">

1.3.1 Info and Relationships Level A

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. Form elements must have labels. The form element has no associated <label> or aria-label. Affected pages: /skjema/barnehage. Impact on users: Screen readers do not announce headings, lists and tables correctly. The user loses the structure and has to read everything in sequence.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× Form elements must have labels machine evidence
    <input type="text" name="fnr">

1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose Level AA

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. Identify input purpose. The email field is missing autocomplete="email". Affected pages: /skjema/barnehage. Impact on users: The browser and assistive technology cannot fill the fields in automatically, so users with motor or cognitive difficulties have to type everything themselves.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× Identify input purpose machine evidence
    <input type="email" name="epost">

1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) Level AA

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. Elements must have sufficient color contrast. The contrast between text and background is too low. Minimum 4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text. Affected pages: /. Impact on users: Text with too little contrast is hard or impossible to read for partially sighted users, for older users, and for anyone in bright light.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× Elements must have sufficient color contrast machine evidence
    <button class="cta">Apply for a place</button>

Prinsipp 2. Operable

2.4.1 Bypass Blocks Level A

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. Keyboard users must be able to skip repeated navigation. There is no skip-navigation link at the top of the page. Affected pages: /. Impact on users: Screen reader and keyboard users have to go through the whole menu again on every page before they reach the content.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× Keyboard users must be able to skip repeated navigation (WCAG 2.4.1). machine evidence
    <body>

2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) Level A

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. Link purpose. 2 links are called «Les mer» but lead to different places (/info, /kontakt). The name cannot tell the user where the link goes - and a screen reader user moving between links hears exactly the same text. Affected pages: /skjema/barnehage. Impact on users: Links such as «read more» or «click here» say nothing when the screen reader announces the links on their own, without the surrounding text.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× Link purpose machine evidence
    <a href="/info">Les mer</a>

2.4.7 Focus Visible Level AA

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. The focus indicator is required for keyboard navigation. The CSS removes focus (outline:none/0) without a visible :focus-visible replacement. Affected pages: /. Impact on users: The keyboard user cannot see where on the page they are, and navigates blind.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× The focus indicator is required for keyboard navigation machine evidence
    a:focus{outline:none}

Prinsipp 3. Understandable

3.2.3 Consistent Navigation Level AA

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. The main menu must have the same order on every page. «Tjenester» and «Politikk» swap places compared with forsiden. Affected pages: /kontakt. Impact on users: The menu is in a different order from page to page, so the user has to get their bearings again every time.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× The main menu must have the same order on every page (WCAG 3.2.3). machine evidence
    <nav>

Prinsipp 4. Robust

4.1.2 Name, Role, Value Level A

Content that breaches the criterion

We found 1 instance on 1 of 3 pages tested. Form elements must have labels. The form element has no associated <label> or aria-label. Affected pages: /skjema/barnehage. Impact on users: The screen reader cannot say what an element is or what state it is in, so the user does not know what they are operating.

See the finding behind this (1 rule)
  • 1× Form elements must have labels machine evidence
    <input type="text" name="fnr">

Criteria you must assess yourselves (26)

These criteria cannot be decided by machine. We therefore do not claim they are met. Answer the question, and enter the answer in uustatus.

Testing and assessment of the website

We have tested and assessed the website ourselves.

Website
https://demo.kommune.no
Dato for testen
2026-07-27
Pages tested
3
Standard
WCAG 2.1 level AA - 48 criteria in the Norwegian regulations

How we tested: established machine rules (axe-core) and our own rules against the code, behaviour tests in a real browser (keyboard navigation, visible focus, 200 % text, 320 px screen width), tests across the pages (consistent navigation and identification), and deterministic checks of the judgement-based criteria where they can be measured. No AI and no external language model is used. Criteria that cannot be decided by machine are listed above, not guessed at.

Complaints

Do you experience errors or shortcomings in the accessibility of the website? Contact us first:

[Contact email or a link to a feedback form]  ·  [Phone]

If you do not get a satisfactory answer, you can complain to Diskrimineringsnemnda, the Norwegian tribunal that handles user complaints about failures to meet ICT accessibility requirements.

Digitaliseringsdirektoratet - the Norwegian Authority for Universal Design of ICT (uutilsynet) is the supervisory authority and enforces the regulations. It does not handle individual user complaints; Diskrimineringsnemnda does.

Teknisk samsvarsvurdering fra skanningen

–
No conformance level
The tool cannot give an automatic conformance conclusion. See the machine findings and manual checkpoints below.
URL skannet
https://demo.kommune.no
Dato skannet
2026-07-27
Pages checked
3
Machine findings
8
Needs review
0
Viktig merknad: The machine tests document technical findings that must be verifiable in the DOM, CSS, HTTP or actual browser behaviour. Criteria requiring judgement are marked for professional review before publication.
13
Ingen machine findings
25
Should be checked
6
Serious machine findings
4
Needs review manuelt

Detaljert kriteriumstatus – WCAG 2.1 A og AA

Krit. Niv. Kriterium Status Findings
1.1.1 A Non-text content Serious machine findings 1 problem(er)
1.2.1 A Audio-only and video-only (prerecorded) Needs review manuelt –
1.2.2 A Captions (prerecorded) Should be checked ✓
1.2.5 AA Audio description (prerecorded) Needs review manuelt –
1.3.1 A Info and relationships Serious machine findings 1 problem(er)
1.3.2 A Meaningful sequence Should be checked ✓
1.3.3 A Sensory characteristics Should be checked ✓
1.3.4 AA Orientation Ingen machine findings ✓
1.3.5 AA Identify input purpose Should be checked 1 problem(er)
1.4.1 A Use of color Should be checked ✓
1.4.2 A Audio control Ingen machine findings ✓
1.4.3 AA Contrast (minimum) Serious machine findings 1 problem(er)
1.4.4 AA Resize text Ingen machine findings ✓
1.4.5 AA Images of text Should be checked ✓
1.4.10 AA Reflow Ingen machine findings ✓
1.4.11 AA Non-text contrast Should be checked ✓
1.4.12 AA Text spacing Ingen machine findings ✓
1.4.13 AA Content on hover or focus Should be checked ✓
2.1.1 A Keyboard Ingen machine findings ✓
2.1.2 A No keyboard trap Ingen machine findings ✓
2.1.4 A Character key shortcuts Should be checked ✓
2.2.1 A Timing adjustable Should be checked ✓
2.2.2 A Pause, stop, hide Ingen machine findings ✓
2.3.1 A Three flashes or below threshold Needs review manuelt –
2.4.1 A Bypass blocks Serious machine findings 1 problem(er)
2.4.2 A Page titled Ingen machine findings ✓
2.4.3 A Focus order Should be checked ✓
2.4.4 A Link purpose (in context) Should be checked 1 problem(er)
2.4.5 AA Multiple ways Should be checked ✓
2.4.6 AA Headings and labels Should be checked ✓
2.4.7 AA Focus visible Serious machine findings 1 problem(er)
2.5.1 A Pointer gestures Should be checked ✓
2.5.2 A Pointer cancellation Should be checked ✓
2.5.3 A Label in name Ingen machine findings ✓
2.5.4 A Motion actuation Should be checked ✓
3.1.1 A Language of page Ingen machine findings ✓
3.1.2 AA Language of parts Should be checked ✓
3.2.1 A On focus Should be checked ✓
3.2.2 A On input Should be checked ✓
3.2.3 AA Consistent navigation Should be checked 1 problem(er)
3.2.4 AA Consistent identification Ingen machine findings ✓
3.3.1 A Error identification Should be checked ✓
3.3.2 A Labels or instructions Should be checked ✓
3.3.3 AA Error suggestion Should be checked ✓
3.3.4 AA Error prevention (legal, financial, data) Needs review manuelt –
4.1.1 A Parsing Ingen machine findings ✓
4.1.2 A Name, role, value Serious machine findings 1 problem(er)
4.1.3 AA Status messages Should be checked ✓

Status explanations

StatusBetydning
Ingen machine findingsThe scanner found no violations in the deterministic tests for this criterion. Any judgement-based parts remain for professional review.
Should be checkedThe criterion has a partial, heuristic or AI-based assessment, or findings of low to moderate severity. Professional review is recommended.
Serious machine findingsThe scanner found critical or serious technical findings that should be fixed or verified.
Needs review manueltThe criterion requires human judgement, media understanding or domain and transaction context.

Exemptions you must assess

No scanner can fill in these two fields of the statement - they require knowledge of the organisation and the content. Breaches of the criteria are further up, under «Content that breaches the criteria».

C. Disproportionate burden

An exemption is allowed when the requirements impose a burden that prevents the organisation from carrying out its core tasks. The assessment looks at the effect on users, the nature of the organisation, costs, size and resources. If you claim this, it must be justified in the statement.

[List content you claim a disproportionate burden for, with justification - or «Not applicable»]

D. Content outside the scope of the regulations

[For example third-party content you do not control, or live media - or «Not applicable»]

LanguageNOEN