Almost every business that gets an accessibility complaint discovers the same thing: the problem didn't start with the site. It started with the absence of a statement.
The statement is the one document in the entire process that can be checked from the outside, without opening the code and without expertise. It's also the first thing anyone checks.
Why the statement is what trips businesses up.
Think about it from the checker's point of view.
Establishing that a site isn't accessible means testing contrast, keyboard navigation and semantics. That's work. Establishing that there's no accessibility statement means scrolling to the bottom of the page.
That's why the statement is the entry point in almost every complaint. It isn't the heaviest requirement — it's the most visible one.
And there's a second thing most businesses miss: even if you're exempt from making the site accessible, you're not exempt from publishing accessible ways to reach you. The revenue exemption removes the technical obligation. It doesn't make you invisible.
What it has to contain.
An accessibility statement isn't a general paragraph about a commitment to equality. There's a list, and every item on it gets checked:
- The level achieved — for example IS 5568 at level AA, and over what scope.
- What was tested and how — which browsers, which screen readers, on what date.
- An accessibility coordinator — name, phone, email. A real person, not "the support team".
- A summary of what was actually changed on the site.
- What still isn't accessible — if a component defeated you, say so explicitly.
- Physical arrangements — if the business has premises that receive the public.
The item that surprises people is the fifth. A statement that admits a limitation is stronger than one claiming perfection — because it proves somebody actually looked.
The template everyone copies.
One of the most common searches in Israel is "accessibility statement example". The predictable result: thousands of sites carrying identical wording.
Copying isn't the problem. The problem is that a copied statement asserts things that never happened.
If your statement says the site was tested with NVDA and VoiceOver and nobody ever launched a screen reader, that isn't an incomplete statement. It's a false one. And in a legal complaint, a document asserting untrue facts hurts more than no document at all.
The rule is simple: don't claim a test you didn't run. If you only checked in Chrome and only by yourself, write exactly that.
Where it has to sit.
Three practical requirements people fail:
- Its own page, not a paragraph inside your terms or privacy policy.
- Linked from every page — in practice, the footer.
- The page itself must be accessible. A statement published as an image or a scanned PDF is a joke that gets tested.
A statement on Wix or WordPress.
On both platforms this is technically trivial: create a page, add a footer link. There's no engineering obstacle here.
The obstacle is different. On both it's easy to publish a statement while the site itself isn't accessible — which is exactly the dangerous state: a document claiming conformance, sitting on top of a site that doesn't have it.
If you publish a statement, make sure it describes reality. If the site hasn't been fixed yet, you can write one that says what's done, what's in progress and when it's expected to finish. That's legitimate, and far safer than an inflated claim.
An accessibility coordinator in a two-person business.
The coordinator requirement sounds like something for a large organisation, which is why it gets skipped.
It isn't. In a small business the coordinator is usually the owner. What's required is a name, a way to reach them, and somebody who will actually read what comes in.
And this isn't a formality. If a user hits a barrier and gets in touch, a documented complaint that was handled is the best protection you have. The regulations give a 60-day window to fix an issue before a claim can be filed. The coordinator is what makes that window work in your favour.
What to do now.
- Check whether you have a statement at all — and whether it sits on its own page and is linked from the footer.
- Walk the six items above and mark what's missing.
- Delete every sentence describing a test you didn't run. That is what turns a dangerous statement into a protective one.
- Appoint a coordinator and publish their details.
- Only then deal with the site itself.
That order isn't accidental. The statement is cheap, fast, and closes the most visible exposure. The site takes longer — and you can start it while the statement is already protecting you.