Whether these tools can actually be used.

What this covers

This statement covers engilane.com andSitewatch, which is one page with one form and would only repeat this text if it published its own. The two larger tools do publish their own, because each has an interface and a set of limitations this page could not describe honestly: AI Act Ready andAccessibility Act Ready. Nothing here covers Gumroad, which takes the payments and is a third party under its own statement.

The technical basis

EN 301 549, and the functional requirements of Annex I to the Directive. No harmonised standard has been cited in the Official Journal for this Directive, so nothing here relies on the presumption of conformity in Article 15. Meeting EN 301 549 is offered as evidence of how the Annex I requirements are met, not as a presumption that they are. That distinction is awkward, and it is the truthful one.

How the requirements are met

Both pages here are close to the easiest possible case: static, no tracking, no cookie banner, no third-party script, no carousel and no autoplaying media. Every page declares its language and has a title and one first-level heading. Text is high contrast throughout, zoom is not restricted, and the site is operable by keyboard because there is nothing on it that is not a link, a heading or a paragraph. Motion is limited to short transitions, disabled for anyone who has asked their system to reduce it.

Sitewatch adds one form and a list of results. The field has a real label rather than a placeholder standing in for one, and the domains you typed stay in it after a check, so nothing has to be held in mind. Each result is a disclosure you open, headed by the verdict as a word, not only as a colour: a red row also says "critical", and the detail inside it is a list of problems in sentences and a description list of what was found. Nothing in the report has to be seen in colour to be read.

Known limitations

The status panel on the front page updates on its own after the page has loaded, and its change is not announced to a screen reader. Nothing on this site depends on reading it.

Sitewatch's results and its tallies are marked as polite live regions, so they are announced as they arrive, but nothing is moved there. A screen reader user is told the count changed and then has to travel to the list to find out which domain it was. Worse, the rows arrive one at a time as each check finishes, so a long list announces itself repeatedly. That is the least comfortable thing on any of these sites, and it is a known defect rather than a design decision.

None of this has been tested with a screen reader by somebody who uses one every day. That is the real limit of this statement, and stating it is more use to you than a claim I cannot back.

How this is kept true

Article 13(3) makes this a continuing duty rather than an audit, so the check is tied to changes rather than to a calendar. Accessibility Act Ready runs its own markup and Annex V checks against its own pages on every test run, and a finding fails the build. It also has a command that points those same checks over the network at this site, at Sitewatch and at the AI Act tool, including at this statement, which is run after any deploy that touches their markup. A gap in this page is therefore something our own product reports, in the same words it would use about yours. This page is reviewed whenever one of those runs changes what it would have to say, and at least once a year. The date above is that review, not the first publication.

Reporting a barrier, and where to complain

karim@engilane.com. Say which page, which step, and which assistive technology if you were using one. You will get an answer saying what I intend to do, including where I do not intend to act and why.

If that answer does not satisfy you, the enforcement authority is the one designated in your own member state. This Directive is enforced nationally rather than centrally, and no single European body takes these complaints. The authority for nine member states is named onthe country pages of the accessibility tool, and where a state has not designated one, that page says so rather than guessing.