In December 2025, as part of Index CSGOV, we analysed 225 Czech public administration websites and detected 226,762 accessibility issues. This is not a one-off audit, but a systematic and repeatable measurement that makes it possible to track both the current state and its development over time.
What does this data tell us? And which errors have the biggest impact on the resulting score?
What we analysed
- 225 website audits
- 226,762 issues found
At first glance the numbers may seem reassuring. Critical errors make up "only" less than one percent, but it is precisely these errors that often mean the website is practically unusable for some users.
Errors in the moderate and minor categories are often rather recommendations on what to focus on in manual testing, which is also why they are not included in the calculation of the final score.
Even a small percentage of critical errors has a big impact
Critical errors form only a small part of the overall data. But that is exactly why they often escape attention. There are not many of them in total, yet their impact on real users is fundamental.
These are not cosmetic shortcomings or "technical details for developers". Critical errors typically mean that some users cannot reach the content at all.
What counts as a critical error?
Most often these are situations where:
- images are missing alternative texts
For screen reader users, an image without alt text is an empty space. If the image carries information (e.g. a button, an infographic, a call to action), the content is lost entirely. - the ARIA structure is broken
Incorrectly used ARIA (e.g. a missing parent element or forbidden attributes) confuses assistive technologies. As a result, the user does not know where they are on the page, what is interactive and what is not.
Assistive technologies cannot interpret the content correctly.
Navigation, forms or dynamic content become unreadable or unusable. The user can "see" the page, but cannot work with it.
Why are these errors truly critical?
Because their impact is not "worse UX" but zero UX. For the affected user, the page does not exist.
The user:
- cannot submit a form,
- does not understand the structure of the page,
- has no idea where a button or link is,
- or cannot reach the information at all.
In the public administration environment this means more than just frustration. It means a real barrier to handling obligations, applications or accessing information the user is entitled to.
How Index CSGOV helps
Index CSGOV treats these errors as follows:
- it does not downplay them, even though they are few in percentage terms,
- it penalises them more heavily than less severe issues,
- and above all it makes them visible in the context of other websites.
Thanks to that:
- critical errors do not get lost in the "green numbers" of other tools.
- it is possible to track whether they are actually being fixed or just piling up,
- and website operators can see that these are not theoretical WCAG points, but concrete obstacles for concrete people.
The 5 most common errors affecting accessibility
Insufficient text contrast
18,258 occurrences | 94% of websites | Serious error
Almost 80% of all serious errors are related to text contrast.
Typically this concerns:
- texts on coloured backgrounds
- secondary information
- placeholders and supplementary labels
The contrast problem is not a "detail for the visually impaired". It is a barrier for users on mobile, outside in the sun, on older monitors and with tired eyes.
Content outside landmark regions
7,135 occurrences | 80% of websites | Serious error
All content should be placed in regions marked with landmarks. A user of assistive technology can then move quickly through the document and understand its structure better. Content outside these regions is not completely inaccessible, but finding it and navigating it is considerably harder.
Links without an accessible name
1,454 occurrences | 41% of websites | Serious error
The link exists, but:
- it has no understandable name
- or it is not clear where it leads
For screen reader users this means they may hear just "link, link, link" – without context. These links are often used with the intention of making the website easier to use (slider navigation, drop-down menus etc.), but for assistive technology users they are just annoying clutter.
Images without alternative text
682 occurrences | 22% | Critical error
One of the most common critical errors, appearing across websites.
Yet alt text:
- is technically simple
- has a huge impact on the comprehensibility of content
- does not have to be filled in, but must be present – then it is a decorative image that screen readers skip
It is a typical example of a problem that is easy to overlook but hard to excuse. It is also often an error that editors themselves can influence, provided developers have given them adequate technical tools.
UI components must have a programmatically determined name and role
1,350 occurrences | 35% of websites | Serious error
All interactive elements must have a correctly set accessible name, role and state. This helps users orient themselves in the document, notice changes after an action, and also operate forms.
Form element without a label
178 occurrences | 13% of websites | Critical
More than 13% of the measured websites contain forms whose fields and buttons have no label. Such a form is very hard or impossible to use with assistive technologies. The often used "trick" of showing a placeholder instead of a label – which disappears the moment you tap into the field – really does not improve the situation.
What the data shows
- The biggest problems are neither complex nor exotic
- They repeat across websites and institutions
- Most of them can be solved systematically
Accessibility, however, is not about "ticking a checklist", but about long-term work and monitoring over time.
Why measuring accessibility long-term makes sense
A one-off audit shows the state at a given moment. But regular measurement shows:
- whether the website is improving
- where problems keep coming back
- what impact changes and redesigns have
And that is exactly what Index CSGOV does.