Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose The Internet has transformed the way we access healthcare and information, yet barriers to digital inclusion remain for persons with disabilities. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) promote equitable digital access for persons with disabilities, however, guideline adherence is inconsistent, and standards do not fully address the needs of individuals with communication disabilities. This study aimed to investigate whether high-use Australian health and government websites meet: (1) minimum (WCAG 2.2 Level AA) and comprehensive (WCAG 2.2 Level AAA) web accessibility standards, and (2) Novel Level of Success Criteria for persons with aphasia (communication disability). Methods Eleven Australian healthcare and government websites were selected based on usage. The homepage and one internal webpage of each website were evaluated using Accessible Web RAMP™. Each website was assessed for: (1) compliance with WCAG 2.2 Level AA and Level AAA standards, and (2) performance against Novel Level of Success Criteria for persons with aphasia. Results At WCAG 2.2 Level AA, 7 (64%) homepages and 8 (73%) internal webpages were not fully compliant. At Level AAA, 10 (91%) homepages and 11 (100%) internal webpages demonstrated violations, presenting potential accessibility challenges for persons with aphasia. Performance on the Novel Criteria demonstrated a similar trend in non-conformance. However, some websites demonstrated a reduced total number of violations. The majority of issues were concentrated within the perceivable principle. Conclusion A high proportion of selected high-use Australian health and government websites presented accessibility non-compliances across all levels of criteria, including the Novel Criteria. Despite some websites demonstrating fewer violations against the Novel Criteria, accessibility barriers remain prevalent. This highlights the importance of improving inclusive practices, strengthening regulatory compliances, and integrating cognitive and communication disabilities into digital accessibility standards.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: