Accessibility Guideline EN 301 549

[oliversamoila]

Hello everyone,
I have offered to transfer the following results from a discussion thread in SIG Accessibility into the context of the ‘Accessibility Guideline’ and to present them as a proposal for updating our documentation. This PR includes these changes.
I would kindly ask you to carefully review the changes, as they significantly reduce the amount of documentation while referring to the one external document identified as relevant by the group.
In particular, I would like to ask the @ILIAS-eLearning/technical-board, as the responsible authority, for its statement. However, further feedback is also very welcome.

From my point of view, the following points should at least be discussed:
a) Should the new document also contain a reference to the categorisation of ILIAS as a ‘web page’? This focuses the question of requirements on the correct content of the comprehensive standard. Or are there reasons to classify it differently? Or are there other reasons not to add this?
b) Should the passage ‘Accessibility Checklist’ be kept because it contains useful information? Is this helpful for our developers, or does it give the impression that the complexity is lower than it actually is? I can also restore this paragraph.

Additional comments and questions would very much be appreciated.

Kind regards,
@oliversamoila

[Annett7811]

Thank you very much, @oliversamoila, for preparing this PR.


From an accessibility perspective, I explicitly welcome the PR and consider it both technically and strategically important.

In my opinion there are clear technical, strategic, and normative reasons to align the further development and provision of the ILIAS learning management system with the European standard EN 301 549. From an accessibility perspective, I would strongly caution against understanding ILIAS merely as a ‘web page’, but rather as a web-based application and learning platform with complex workflows, authentication mechanisms, dynamic state changes, document and media handling, and diverse interaction patterns.

EN 301 549 constitutes the key European reference framework for digital accessibility in the field of information and communication technologies. It is a harmonised standard in the context of the European Accessibility Act (EAA) and forms the technical basis for national legal implementations within the EU – including, for example, the BITV and the Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz (BFSG) in Germany, Real Decreto 193/2023 in Spain, or the WZG in Austria. Beyond the EU, EN 301 549 is increasingly being adopted as a reference standard as well, for instance in Australia (AS EN 301 549) and Canada (CAN/ASC-EN 301 549:2024). Aligning with EN 301 549 therefore means orienting development towards an overarching and internationally interoperable normative framework that national obligations increasingly refer to.

Even though the ILIAS Association itself is not a direct addressee of these legal regulations, many of its user institutions – in particular universities, educational providers, and public sector organisations – are. Development aligned with EN 301 549 directly supports these institutions in the legally compliant and sustainable use of ILIAS.
In terms of content, EN 301 549 goes well beyond the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). While WCAG primarily focus on web content, EN 301 549 explicitly addresses software functionality, interaction logic, authentication processes, and document and multimedia handling. These aspects are not sufficiently covered by a WCAG-only perspective.

At the same time, EN 301 549 explicitly integrates WCAG: for web-based content and applications, the standard generally references WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the benchmark. EN 301 549 therefore does not replace WCAG, but systematically incorporates them and complements them with additional requirements that go beyond classic web content and are far better suited to the real usage scenarios of a learning management system.

Last but not least, a consistent alignment with EN 301 549 strengthens the strategic positioning of ILIAS. It facilitates the use of the system by public institutions across Europe, increases acceptance in procurement and tendering processes, and clearly signals that accessibility is understood as a core quality attribute rather than merely a legal minimum requirement.

From my perspective, these points are not merely editorial questions, but strategic decisions regarding the normative framework that should guide future development. Clarifying this at the level of the Technical Board would therefore be highly valuable.

Best regards
Annett