Accessibility Statement Generator: Free Tool + Guide

Last updated: October 27, 2026. This is general information, not legal advice.

An accessibility statement generator turns a short set of honest answers — scope, conformance target, known limitations, testing method, feedback channel — into a publish-ready public statement, instead of a page written from a blank screen. Answer the nine fields in the generator below and it assembles the statement in your own words; the same nine fields also appear further down as a complete fill-in-the-blank template you can copy and publish today, generator or not.

Key numbers: WCAG 2.2 defines 86 success criteria in force, 55 at Levels A and AA — the set a conformance statement has to reference (W3C). In 2026, 95.9% of the top million home pages still carried a detectable WCAG failure, averaging 56.1 errors per page (WebAIM Million 2026). The EAA requires covered service providers to publish an accessibility statement describing how their service meets the requirements, with member-state penalties up to €500,000 (Directive (EU) 2019/882). In TestParty's audit work across 100+ brands, automated tooling detects roughly 60–70% of real issues — the rest, and most of what a statement's "known limitations" section should name, comes from manual testing.

What is an accessibility statement and why publish one?

An accessibility statement is a dated public page that names what standard a site targets, how close it comes, and how a visitor can report a problem — a public commitment, not a marketing claim, and not proof of compliance by itself.

It serves two audiences at once: practical information for a visitor with a disability (what works, what doesn't yet, who to contact), and evidence of good-faith effort, dated, for everyone else — regulators, procurement teams, opposing counsel. The Department of Justice points to WCAG as its ADA guidance standard without mandating a specific document; the EAA goes further and makes a statement an information obligation for covered services; and W3C's own guidance recommends one regardless of jurisdiction. None of that is legal advice — it's a description of common practice and public requirements, not a substitute for counsel.

What must a good statement include?

A good accessibility statement answers nine specific questions — scope, target, status, gaps, plan, method, contact, compatibility, and dates — and a page missing more than one or two of them is decorative rather than useful.

The generator below asks for exactly these nine fields, in this order:

1. Organization and site name, plus scope — which property this covers (whole domain, or storefront/cart/checkout), stated by name.
2. Conformance target — the named standard and level, almost always WCAG 2.2 Level AA today.
3. Honest conformance status — one of three W3C-standard terms: fully conforms, partially conforms, or does not conform, never a vague "we are committed to accessibility."
4. Known limitations, specifically listed — named issues, not a blanket disclaimer: "the size-guide PDF isn't screen-reader tagged," not "some content may not be accessible."
5. Remediation plan with dates — what's being fixed and by when, so the limitations section reads as in-progress, not permanent.
6. Testing method — which automated tools ran and what manual testing happened, named specifically; a scan-only methodology can't support a conformance claim.
7. Feedback channel and response commitment — a working contact method and a stated response window.
8. Compatibility notes — which assistive technologies and browsers were actually tested against.
9. Dates prepared and last reviewed — two dates, not one, so a reader can see how current the claim is.

The template: copy, fill, publish

Every field above maps directly to a section below — fill in the brackets, delete this sentence, and the result is a complete, publishable accessibility statement without waiting on the generator or a developer.

Accessibility Statement for [Organization / Site Name]

[Organization Name] is committed to providing a website that is accessible
to the widest possible audience, including people with disabilities. This
statement applies to [scope, e.g., "all pages on [domain], including the
storefront, cart, and checkout"].

Conformance status
Our target is WCAG 2.2 Level AA. As of [date prepared], [domain] is
[fully conformant / partially conformant / not conformant] with this
standard. "Partially conformant" means some content does not yet fully
conform to the accessibility standard.

Known limitations
We are aware of the following. Contact us about any issue not listed here.
- [e.g., "Some older product-spec PDFs are not tagged for screen readers."]
- [e.g., "A third-party checkout widget does not announce all form errors
  to assistive technology."]
- [Limitation]

Remediation plan
- [Issue] — target completion [date]
- [Issue] — target completion [date]

How we test for accessibility
- Automated scanning with [tool names, e.g., axe-core, WAVE, Lighthouse]
- Manual testing: keyboard-only navigation, screen reader testing with
  [NVDA / VoiceOver / JAWS]
- Monitoring cadence: [e.g., "daily automated scans, monthly manual review"]
This evaluation was last performed on [date].

Feedback
- Email: [accessibility@yourdomain.com]
- Phone: [phone number, if offered]
- We aim to respond within [X] business days.

Compatibility
- Screen readers tested: [NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver]
- Browsers tested: [current version + one prior major version of Chrome,
  Safari, Firefox, Edge]
[Domain] may not be fully compatible with older or untested configurations.

Preparation of this statement
Prepared on [date prepared]; last reviewed on [date last reviewed].

Every bracket should reflect something someone actually checked — a field left generic ("we test regularly," "some pages may have issues") is the difference between a statement that holds up and one that reads like it was never filled in.

What makes a statement legally useful instead of decorative?

A statement is legally useful when it is honest and dated, and legally dangerous when it overclaims — a page announcing "fully accessible" that a plaintiff's expert can disprove in minutes is worse evidence than no statement at all.

Most templates get this backwards: the instinct is to round up, and the safer move is to round down. "Partially conforms" with named limitations and a dated plan shows good faith; "fully compliant" claims something 95.9% of top-million sites would fail if tested (WebAIM Million 2026), and a false claim can become evidence of misrepresentation rather than compliance. A statement paired with real scan history is stronger than either alone — in one public TestParty matter, a documented remediation trail turned a $74,999 demand into a $2,000 settlement for Dorai Home. A WCAG compliance report is the fuller evidence-backed document a statement summarizes; see VPAT vs. ACR vs. accessibility statement for how the three connect. A statement is also not a substitute for fixing anything — publishing one while running a widget on top of unremediated code leaves the same gap as an unfilled ACR: paperwork that doesn't match the site.

Where should it live and how should it be formatted?

An accessibility statement belongs at a predictable URL — `/accessibility` — linked from every page's footer, and it needs to meet the same accessibility bar it describes: plain language, real headings, sufficient contrast, no PDF-only version.

A statement a screen reader user can't navigate undermines its own claim before the first sentence, and EU-covered services face a specific EAA obligation to publish it in an accessible format — not a PDF or a support-ticket macro. Keep sentences short, skip legal boilerplate, and put the feedback contact near the top, since that's what visitors with disabilities need first. If you haven't confirmed the site matches what the statement will claim, run a free scan first or check whether the site is ADA compliant before publishing limitation language you can't back up.

How often should you update it?

Update the statement after every remediation cycle, after any audit, and after any major site release — with a quarterly review as the floor even when nothing else has changed, so "last reviewed" never drifts more than three months stale.

A remediation plan with a passed target date and no update is worse than an honest "not yet fixed" — it shows the statement was written once and abandoned. Tie the cadence to testing that already produces evidence: daily automated scans catch regressions between full reviews, and a monthly manual audit is a natural trigger to refresh the limitations and remediation sections. That same discipline — dated records, retained scan history, a defined review interval — is the broader practice covered in accessibility compliance documentation. EU-specific timing and format details are covered in the EAA accessibility statement requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I legally need an accessibility statement if I only sell in the US? No single US federal law requires this exact document, though the DOJ points to WCAG as its guidance standard and a statement is often the first thing a demand letter checks for. If you sell into the EU, the EAA makes one an explicit obligation.

What if we're not close to full conformance yet? Publish "partially conforms" with the specific gaps and a remediation plan — a stronger position than staying silent or waiting for a clean scan that may never come. An honest partial statement with dates outperforms no statement every time.

Does an accessibility statement replace a VPAT or compliance report? No. A statement is a short public page about your overall service; a VPAT/ACR is a standardized procurement document, and a compliance report is the fuller evidence behind it. See VPAT vs. ACR vs. accessibility statement for how they connect.

Will publishing a statement stop us from getting sued? No document prevents a lawsuit by itself. It creates a dated record of good-faith effort that counsel can point to — paired with real remediation, that record has measurably changed outcomes, including Dorai Home's demand settling far below the initial ask.

TestParty practices a cyborg approach to content: AI assists with research and drafting, our accessibility experts validate every claim. This article represents our editorial perspective based on public data as of the publication date. We compete in the digital accessibility space — which means we have informed opinions, but also a vested interest. All sources are cited so you can draw your own conclusions.