Where WCAG evidence fits
The European Accessibility Act makes the applicable Annex I accessibility requirements the legal target for covered products and services. Article 15 creates a where products or services conform with harmonised standards or parts whose references have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, or with technical specifications or parts established by a Commission implementing act under Article 15, and only so far as those standards, technical specifications, or parts cover the relevant EAA requirements.
is a practical ICT evidence bridge. ETSI describes it as a European standard for ICT products and services and says it applies to software, hardware, and combinations of hardware and software. EN 301 549 V3.2.1 is harmonised for the Web Accessibility Directive. ETSI published the final draft of V4.1.0 in June 2026 with EAA relationship tables, but a final draft is not an OJEU citation, so do not transfer either the Web Accessibility Directive reference or final-draft status into an EAA presumption claim.
V3.2.1 reflects 2.1 content in clauses 9, 10, and 11 for web content, non-web documents, and software, and its Annex C explains how to determine conformance with individual requirements. Write a WCAG report as evidence for those EN 301 549 requirements, not as a standalone EAA conclusion.
- Use evidence for web pages, documents, and software user interfaces where the relevant clause points to WCAG-derived criteria.
- Keep a separate EAA mapping from the covered product or service to Annex I and to any clauses relied on.
- Before using presumption-of-conformity language, check whether the harmonised standard or part has an OJEU reference, or whether the technical specification or part was established by a Commission implementing act under Article 15, and confirm that it covers the relevant EAA requirement.
- Record the law supported by each standards reference. A V3.2.1 Annex A result may support a Web Accessibility Directive conclusion, but it is not an EAA Annex I crosswalk.
- Avoid saying that conformance proves EAA compliance for hardware controls, packaging, support services, service information, economic-operator obligations, or Article 14 assessments unless those items have their own evidence.
Is evidence useful for EU Accessibility Act and work?
Yes, but only for the parts it actually tests. evidence is useful when it is mapped to requirements for web content, non-web documents, or software interfaces and then connected to the relevant EAA Annex I requirement. It should not be used as a broad EAA compliance claim for the whole product, service, organisation, or market placement.
Can a audit prove EAA compliance?
No. A audit can support specific accessibility requirements, especially where uses WCAG-derived criteria, but EAA compliance also depends on product or service scope, Annex I coverage, technical documentation or service information, conformity assessment language, operator responsibilities, complaints or authority requests, and any Article 14 fundamental-alteration or disproportionate-burden assessment.
Supports the legal target: EAA Annex I requirements, Article 15 presumption of conformity, technical documentation, service information, and Article 14 exception records.
Explains EN 301 549 scope for ICT products and services and its relationship to web, mobile, software, hardware, and future EAA support.
Supports the distinction between voluntary harmonised standards and mandatory legal requirements, including OJEU publication for presumption of conformity.
Supports WCAG criteria referenced by EN 301 549 V3.2.1 for web content, documents, and software evidence.
Confirms that EN 301 549 V3.2.1 is harmonised for the Web Accessibility Directive and that later WCAG or EN editions do not acquire that legal effect automatically.
Official ETSI final draft used to verify the June 2026 revision and its EAA relationship tables; final-draft status does not establish an OJEU citation.