WCAG 2.1 Audit of Bangladeshi E-Government Accessibility: A Maturity Model for Digital Inclusion

Wahid bin Ahsan, Samia Bari, Tanim Ahamed, Md. Shahadat Hossain, Md. Shamsul Arifin,
Md. Osman Gani, M. H. Taohid

Department of Human-Centered Design, Userhub, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract

This study audits 47 Bangladeshi government e-services across 74 websites, evaluating 1,534 user-critical pages for WCAG 2.1 compliance using automated and manual methods. A total of 14,308 violations were identified, primarily affecting screen reader, keyboard-only, and low-vision users. Common issues included missing form labels (23.6%), contrast failures (15.0%), and structural errors. Violations were most concentrated in education, social protection, and civil registration services. The proposed Accessibility Maturity Model classifies 51.1% of services as Beginner-tier, accounting for nearly 98% of issues. Findings highlight critical accessibility gaps and call for targeted remediation, training, and enforcement aligned with Bangladesh’s 2022 accessibility guideline.

Keywords: Bangladesh government accessibility, WCAG 2.1 compliance, digital inclusion, Accessibility Maturity Model, public-sector HCI

Introduction

Bangladesh’s e-government initiatives—such as platforms for social welfare (e.g., Social Security Program, DSS-MIS), tax registration (e.g., Taxpayer’s Identification Number, TIN), and civil registration—aim to expand civic participation and streamline service delivery. These efforts align with the national Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline for Inclusive Accessibility 2022 Information and Communication Technology Division (2022), which mandates adherence to global accessibility standards across public digital platforms. These services are particularly critical for enabling access to entitlements and affirming legal identity—especially for marginalized and disability-affected populations.

However, existing evaluations indicate that over 90% of Bangladeshi government web pages contain accessibility violations, effectively excluding many users with disabilities from vital public services Jeba et al. (2020). Accessibility, as defined by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, requires that digital content be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust (W3C, 2018). When these standards are neglected, users with visual, auditory, motor, or cognitive impairments face systemic exclusion, undermining principles of inclusive governance and digital equity.

Despite increasing global and regional attention to digital accessibility, empirical audits of WCAG 2.1 compliance remain limited in the Global South. South Asian countries contend with additional barriers—including low digital literacy, multilingual interface challenges, and limited developer training infrastructure (Cao & Loiacono, 2019; Narasimhan, 2021). Bangladesh remains particularly underrepresented in peer-reviewed accessibility evaluations, hindering data-driven policymaking and targeted capacity-building.

This study addresses these gaps by conducting a WCAG 2.1 compliance audit of 47 high-impact e-government services, evaluated as distinct user workflows hosted across 74 government websites. Using a hybrid methodology combining automated scanning with expert-led manual inspection, the study evaluates 1,534 user-critical pages and identifies 14,308 violations, many of which pose serious risks for users relying on assistive technologies. Each service was treated as a distinct unit of analysis to reflect actual user workflows, even when multiple services were hosted under a single domain.

The study pursues three key objectives:

• Assess WCAG 2.1 compliance and identify systemic accessibility barriers across Bangladeshi e-government platforms.
• Evaluate user impact, particularly for screen reader, low-vision, and keyboard-only users.
• Propose an Accessibility Maturity Model to guide remediation and inform institutional policies for inclusive digital governance.

Literature Review

Automated and manual audits commonly identify recurrent violations, such as insufficient contrast, missing alternative text, unlabeled form inputs, and non-informative link texts. These barriers critically affect users who rely on screen readers, keyboard navigation, or other assistive technologies Inal et al. (2022). Government websites in Sweden, Norway, Hungary, and the broader Global South have demonstrated pervasive accessibility gaps, suggesting that regulatory presence alone does not guarantee effective implementation (Ara & Sik-Lanyi, 2022).

In South Asia, these challenges are further intensified by contextual factors. Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan exhibit low digital literacy, under-resourced ICT infrastructure, and limited awareness of accessibility among developers (Cao & Loiacono, 2019; Narasimhan, 2021). Empirical studies in India and Indonesia report thousands of accessibility violations, with Indian e-government platforms often failing WCAG 2.1 Level A compliance (Amaliah et al., 2023; Paul, 2023). While Pakistani government sites have been found to lag behind Chinese counterparts in accessibility compliance, Bangladesh remains underrepresented in empirical WCAG audit research (Bilal et al., 2019).

Despite the growing use of automated tools like WAVE, SiteImprove, and IBM Equal Access, these instruments capture only 30–40% of actual accessibility violations. As such, a hybrid audit methodology—integrating automated scans with expert-led manual inspections—has emerged as the recommended approach to ensure robust evaluation (Lempola et al., 2024; Mateus et al., 2021).

Moreover, while some metrics-based models classify accessibility compliance (Brajnik & Vigo, 2019), few are operationalized in South Asian public sectors. User-centered frameworks, such as the EDIT UX Framework (bin Ahsan, 2024), suggest incorporating iterative redesign and WCAG metrics into evaluation processes, but remain underutilized at scale in governmental contexts.

This study addresses two significant research gaps: (1) the absence of a comprehensive WCAG 2.1 audit of Bangladeshi e-government websites; and (2) the lack of a classification framework to benchmark accessibility across diverse service types. By filling these gaps, it contributes empirically and methodologically to digital inclusion and public sector HCI research in the Global South.

Methodology

This study employed a hybrid accessibility audit to evaluate WCAG 2.1 compliance across 47 government e-services in Bangladesh (see Appendix A for a complete list). These services—identified as discrete public-facing workflows across 74 websites—were selected based on their civic relevance in domains such as social protection, education, taxation, and civil registration. The audit combined automated scans and manual inspection to capture a comprehensive set of accessibility violations and inform the development of a service-level Accessibility Maturity Model (see Benchmarking Accessibility).

Research Design

A quantitative content audit was used to assess compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA criteria, encompassing the four core principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust (W3C, 2018). The unit of analysis was the service, defined as a unique user workflow or platform—regardless of whether multiple services were hosted under the same domain. This design reflects real-world user interaction patterns and allows more precise benchmarking across digital offerings.

The hybrid audit combined automated tools and expert-led manual inspection to mitigate limitations of automated-only approaches, which often fail to detect context-specific and interactive issues (Lempola et al., 2024; Mateus et al., 2021). This approach is further justified by the complex, multi-page nature of transactional government workflows, where automated scans alone are often insufficient.

Data Collection

A total of 1,534 user-facing pages were selected from the 47 services, focusing on critical user flows including homepages, application forms, login interfaces, registration workflows, dashboards, and tracking portals. Each page was scanned using the WebAIM WAVE tool to detect common violations such as missing alt text, unlabeled input fields, and insufficient contrast.

Manual inspections were conducted by trained accessibility researchers, who reviewed structural elements such as heading levels, ARIA roles, keyboard navigation, and focus order. This ensured that dynamic content and screen-reader compatibility issues were adequately captured, especially on interactive or form-heavy platforms.

Data Analysis

A total of 14,308 violations were identified and categorized by WCAG success criteria and conformance level. Violations were further grouped by service, page type, interaction step, and affected user group. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were used to explore error patterns and surface high-risk services.

These results informed the construction of a three-tier Accessibility Maturity Model, adapted from metrics-based frameworks (Brajnik & Vigo, 2019). The model categorizes services into Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced tiers, offering a scalable approach to monitoring compliance, prioritizing interventions, and guiding accessibility policy implementation.

Findings

This study evaluated websites offering 47 distinct Bangladeshi government e-services, including social welfare (e.g., Social Security Program, DSS-MIS), tax registration (e.g., Taxpayer’s Identification Number, TIN), birth and death registration, land mutation, and grievance redress, using WebAIM WAVE and manual inspections for WCAG 2.1 compliance. Across 1,534 evaluated pages spanning 30 unique page types (e.g., home, application, tracking, login, registration, dashboard), 14,308 violations were identified, risking exclusion of users with disabilities (e.g., screen reader, low-vision, keyboard-only) from essential services. While 20 services (42.6%) fall into the Advanced tier, the largest share—24 services (51.1%)—are classified as Beginner-tier, indicating widespread barriers. This section details error distribution, page-level patterns, and user impacts, supported by visualizations.

Error Distribution

The 14,308 violations were most prevalent in services related to higher education, public safety, social protection, and civil registration. Notable examples include the National University Portal (4,803 violations), Rapid Action Battalion (1,320), Bangladesh Open University (878), National Legal Aid Services Organization (570), and the Social Security Program (537). These services span both information-heavy platforms and form-based transactional systems.

Label-related errors were the most common, with 3,382 violations (23.6%), violating WCAG 3.3.2 and obstructing screen reader users. Contrast-related errors were also significant, with 2,152 violations (15.0%), failing WCAG 1.4.3 and affecting low-vision users. Button-related issues such as empty or unclear labels accounted for 948 violations (6.6%). Additional violations were found in categories such as alternative text, link descriptions, and structural headings, many of which impacted both the Perceivable and Operable principles.

By WCAG principle, Perceivable violations dominated (8,269, or 57.8%), followed by Operable (4,592, or 32.1%), Understandable (1,143, or 8.0%), and Robust (107, or 0.7%). Severity-wise, Level A issues comprised 10,915 (76.3%) of violations, with 3,391 (23.7%) at Level AA.

Table 1: Distribution of WCAG 2.1 Errors Across Bangladeshi Government Services

Category	Errors	Percentage	WCAG Principle	Level	Service Example
Label (e.g., missing labels)	3,382	23.6%	Perceivable, Understandable	A, AA	Social Security Program
Contrast (e.g., low contrast)	2,152	15.0%	Perceivable	AA	Taxpayer’s Identification Number
Button (e.g., empty or unclear labels)	948	6.6%	Operable	A	Rapid Action Battalion
Other (e.g., images, links, headings)	7,826	54.8%	Perceivable, Operable	A, AA	Grievance Redress System
Total	14,308	100%	—	—	—

Error counts from WebAIM WAVE and manual evaluations of 1,534 pages (3–5 per service), May 2025. Source: Authors’ analysis.

Figure 1: Distribution of WCAG 2.1 Violations by Accessibility Principle

Pie chart illustrating the distribution of 14,308 WCAG 2.1 violations across the four accessibility principles. Perceivable issues (58%) dominate, followed by Operable (32%), Understandable (8%), and Robust (1%). A small portion includes compound or miscellaneous classification. Source: Authors’ analysis, May 2025.

Page-Specific Patterns

Accessibility violations were concentrated across various page types, indicating systemic issues throughout critical user journeys. Pages labeled as ‘Home’ and ‘Home Page’ together accounted for a substantial number of violations (6,820), creating significant initial barriers for users. Furthermore, transactional pages essential for service delivery, such as ‘Application Page’ (1,333 violations) and ‘Registration Form’ (737 violations), were riddled with errors. These patterns demonstrate that accessibility failures are not isolated but are present at multiple key interaction points.

Figure 2: Accessibility Violations by Government Service Type

Bar chart showing error distribution across selected government service types. High-error services include Birth and Death Registration (1,608) and the Grievance Redress System (1,088), with remaining violations spread across 40+ other e-services. Source: Authors’ analysis, May 2025.

Figure 3: Accessibility Violations by Page Type

Horizontal bar chart displaying WCAG 2.1 violations by aggregated page types. Home pages account for the majority (6,820), followed by Login/Registration-related pages (1,553) and Application forms (1,333). Source: Authors’ analysis, May 2025.

User Impacts

Missing form labels (3,382) obstruct screen reader navigation, violating WCAG 3.3.2 (Inal et al., 2022). Contrast issues (2,152) reduce visibility for low-vision users, violating WCAG 1.4.3 (Mateus et al., 2021). Button-related violations (948) disrupt keyboard navigation and screen reader performance, while other issues (e.g., missing alt text, ambiguous links, empty headings) further marginalize users with cognitive or visual impairments. These persistent accessibility gaps reflect the broader challenge of inclusive service delivery in Bangladesh’s evolving e-government ecosystem.

Benchmarking Accessibility: A Maturity Classification

The Accessibility Maturity Model benchmarks WCAG 2.1 compliance across 47 Bangladeshi government e-services, supporting the Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline for Inclusive (Information and Communication Technology Division, 2022). Adapted from  Brajnik & Vigo (2019), the model categorizes services into three maturity tiers—Beginner (>50 violations), Intermediate (20–50), and Advanced (<20)—to help identify systemic accessibility gaps and prioritize remediation.

Model Structure

Using combined violation counts from WebAIM WAVE and manual inspection, the model reflects the distribution of accessibility issues across full-service evaluations. The tiers are defined as follows:

• Beginner (>50 violations): Services with extensive barriers (e.g., form labeling failures, contrast issues, navigational breakdowns) that may require interface redesign.
• Intermediate (20–50 violations): Platforms with moderate accessibility challenges, often resolvable through focused remediation and iterative testing (Inal et al., 2022).
• Advanced (<20 violations): Services with few or minimal violations, indicating stronger adherence to WCAG 2.1 (Paul, 2023).

Of the 47 evaluated services:

• 24 (51.1%) fall into the Beginner tier, collectively contributing 14,000 violations (97.8% of the total).
• 3 services (6.4%) are classified as Intermediate, with a total of 237 violations.
• 20 services (42.6%) fall into the Advanced tier, accounting for the remaining 71 violations.

The median number of violations per service is 18, while the mode is 2, indicating a right-skewed distribution where a few high-error services—such as the National University Portal (4,803), Rapid Action Battalion (1,320), and Bangladesh Open University (878)—account for a disproportionate share of the burden.

Validation and Application

Beginner-tier services such as the National University Portal and DSS-MIS require urgent developer retraining, interface restructuring, and accessibility reviews. Intermediate-tier services (e.g., eTDS Environment, Police Clearance) would benefit from focused audits and structured remediation. Advanced-tier services (e.g., TIN Registration Portal, Customs Bond) offer implementation models that can inform design standardization under the 2022 Accessibility Guideline.

Table 2: Accessibility Maturity Model (Validated for 47 Services)

Tier	Criteria (Violations)	Services	% of Total	Error Count	Example	Policy Priority
Beginner	>50	24	51.10%	14,000	National University Portal	Training, redesign
Intermediate	20–50	3	6.40%	237	Police Clearance, eTDS	Targeted WCAG fixes
Advanced	<20	20	42.60%	71	TIN Portal, Customs Bond	Replication, standardization

Based on 14,308 violations across 47 services (May 2025). Source: Authors’ analysis.

This uneven distribution highlights how a few high-error Beginner-tier services are responsible for over 97% of all accessibility violations—making them urgent priorities for technical and policy-level intervention.

Figure 4: Accessibility Errors by Maturity Tier (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced)

Bar chart depicting distribution of accessibility violations across 47 services categorized by maturity tier. Beginner-tier services (n=24) account for nearly 98% of total violations, while Intermediate (n=3) and Advanced (n=20) services show substantially fewer violations.

Discussion

This study reveals systemic accessibility failures across 47 Bangladeshi e-government services, with critical issues observed in domains such as higher education, social protection, public safety, and civil registration. Among the most affected were the National University Portal (4,803 violations), Rapid Action Battalion (1,320), and Bangladesh Open University (878)—indicating that even prominent public platforms fail to meet basic accessibility standards.

A total of 14,308 accessibility violations were identified, primarily affecting users who rely on screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, or low-vision accommodations. The most common issues included missing form labels (23.6%), insufficient contrast (15.0%), and button-related errors (6.6%), along with alternative text, ambiguous links, and improper heading structures. These patterns mirror previous studies in South and Southeast Asia  (Amaliah et al., 2023; Paul, 2023), while offering the first empirical benchmark for Bangladesh’s service-level compliance landscape.

Digital Exclusion and Foundational Gaps

The predominance of Level A violations (76.3%) signals persistent neglect of foundational accessibility practices—especially on core interaction pages such as home, application, and registration workflows. The dominance of Perceivable (57.8%) and Operable (32.1%) issues reflects barriers that prevent users from navigating or understanding service interfaces at a basic level. In a context marked by low digital literacy and multilingual design constraints, these failures deepen structural exclusion for people with disabilities and other marginalized groups.

Accessibility as a Governance Obligation

While Bangladesh’s 2022 Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline (Information and Communication Technology Division, 2022) for Inclusive Accessibility mandates WCAG compliance, enforcement remains inconsistent. Unlike India’s national audit systems or Indonesia’s provincial benchmarking efforts, Bangladesh lacks a mechanism for systematic monitoring or service-level remediation (Amaliah et al., 2023; Paul, 2023). This results in wide variance in compliance—even within high-impact domains—where the civic and legal consequences of exclusion are greatest.

As Aziz (2020) notes, Bangladesh’s digital inclusion efforts have historically been technocentric and supply-driven, with insufficient attention to equity-focused implementation or structural accountability. This systemic gap reinforces why accessibility cannot be treated solely as a design issue—it must be embedded within institutional performance and governance frameworks.

The Role of the Accessibility Maturity Model

The proposed Accessibility Maturity Model offers a scalable framework for benchmarking compliance across government services. Among the 47 evaluated services:

• 24 (51.1%) are classified as Beginner-tier (>50 violations), accounting for over 97% of all issues
• 3 (6.4%) fall into the Intermediate tier (20–50 violations)
• 20 (42.6%) are Advanced (<20 violations), with relatively low but not insignificant accessibility gaps

These findings reinforce that while many services are fixable with modest improvements, a small number of high-error platforms drive the majority of accessibility failures. Services like TIN Registration and Customs Bond serve as practical models, while platforms like DSS-MIS and Registrar General’s Office require urgent redesign, developer retraining, and continuous monitoring.

Recommendations

To address the accessibility barriers identified across 47 government services—including critical platforms for taxation, social protection, and civil registration—this study proposes targeted technical, policy, and educational interventions. These are aligned with the 2022 Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline for Inclusive Accessibility (Information and Communication Technology Division, 2022) and grounded in the observed distribution of 14,308 WCAG 2.1 violations. Given that 51.1% of services fall into the Beginner tier and account for over 97% of total violations, the Accessibility Maturity Model provides a structured roadmap for triaging, prioritizing, and sustaining remediation efforts.

Technical Interventions

Government developers must implement essential WCAG 2.1 compliance features to address the most frequent violations. These include adding programmatically associated form labels (WCAG 3.3.2) to support screen reader users, ensuring contrast ratios of at least 4.5:1 (WCAG 1.4.3) for low-vision users, and providing descriptive alt text and semantic headings. Empty ARIA roles and non-informative link text should be removed or corrected.

As Mateus et al. (2021) emphasize, automated tools like WebAIM WAVE detect only a fraction of real-world issues. This audit confirms that even with automation, 76.3% of all violations were Level A failures, many on interactive or form-heavy pages. Thus, manual inspection must accompany automated scans, particularly for the 24 services in the Beginner tier where compounded issues dominate.

Policy Interventions

To institutionalize accessibility, the Ministry of ICT should embed WCAG 2.1 enforcement into public-sector accountability structures. This includes:

• Mandating annual accessibility audits across government services, with results tied to service-level agreements (SLAs) and procurement checklists.
• Prioritizing audits and enforcement for high-impact portals such as DSS-MIS, tax registration, and grievance redress systems—where access failures carry legal and civic consequences.
• Integrating accessibility checkpoints into the post-deployment lifecycle of services, including updates and redesign phases.

These recommendations echo successful strategies in other countries with national or regional enforcement bodies (Hossain et al., 2023; Jordanoski & Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2023). Without such institutionalization, accessibility lapses—particularly among Beginner-tier services—are likely to persist.

Educational Interventions

Capacity building is essential to sustainable compliance. Accessibility education should be embedded into foundational web and mobile development training at universities, technical institutes, and government ICT academies.

Cao & Loiacono (2019) highlight the low awareness of WCAG standards among early-career developers in South Asia. To address this, structured curricula should include:

• Hands-on WCAG testing using both automated tools and manual heuristics.
• Case-based learning using real examples from public services.
• Training on local design frameworks such as the EDIT UX Framework (bin Ahsan, 2024), which integrates WCAG criteria into iterative, user-centered redesign processes.

These educational pathways must target not just developers but also designers, QA teams, and procurement officers who influence platform decisions.

Conclusion

This study conducted a WCAG 2.1 accessibility audit of 47 Bangladeshi government e-services, hosted across 74 websites, evaluating 1,534 user-facing pages. The audit identified 14,308 accessibility violations, with the most frequent barriers involving form labeling, contrast failures, and structural inconsistencies. These issues directly obstruct access for users relying on screen readers, keyboard navigation, or visual support, threatening equitable access to public services.

The proposed Accessibility Maturity Model categorized services into three tiers based on violation counts: 51.1% of services were Beginner-tier, accounting for over 97% of total violations; 6.4% fell into the Intermediate tier; and 42.6% were classified as Advanced. This distribution reveals deep disparities in digital accessibility, even within platforms central to legal identity, taxation, and welfare.

By offering a replicable hybrid audit model and metrics-based maturity framework, this study contributes to public-sector HCI and supports policy implementation aligned with Bangladesh’s 2022 Accessibility Guideline. Technical remediation, enforcement mechanisms, and design education—rooted in inclusive design theory—are essential to close the accessibility gap and ensure digital equity in Bangladesh’s e-government ecosystem.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Userhub for their non-commercial support in coordinating research logistics, including communication management and data handling infrastructure. Portions of preliminary data analysis and language refinement were conducted with the assistance of AI-supported tools, under the direct oversight and final verification of the research team to ensure analytical and editorial rigor.

Declaration of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This study was independently conducted and received no financial support.

References

Amaliah, St. M., Hafiar, H., & Dewi, R. (2023). Analisis Aksesibilitas Website Pemerintah Provinsi Indonesia Sebagai Implementasi Corporate Digital Responsibility terhadap E-Government. Prologia, 7(2), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.24912/pr.v7i2.24456

Ara, J., & Sik-Lanyi, C. (2022). Investigation of COVID-19 Vaccine Information Websites across Europe and Asia Using Automated Accessibility Protocols. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052867

Aziz, A. (2020). Digital inclusion challenges in Bangladesh: the case of the National ICT Policy. Contemporary South Asia, 28(3), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/09584935.2020.1793912

Bilal, M., Yu, Z., Song, S., & Wang, C. (2019). Evaluate Accessibility and Usability Issues of Particular China and Pakistan Government Websites. 2019 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (ICAIBD), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIBD.2019.8836990

bin Ahsan, W. (2024). The EDIT UX Framework: A User-Centered Approach to Effective Product Redesign. Userhub Journal. https://doi.org/10.58947/ZXKD-KLDQ

Brajnik, G., & Vigo, M. (2019). Automatic Web Accessibility Metrics (pp. 505–521). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7440-0_27

Cao, S., & Loiacono, E. (2019). The State of the Awareness of Web Accessibility Guidelines of Student Website and App Developers (pp. 32–42). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_3

Hossain, B., Fatima, M. J., Muzykant, V. L., Hoesin, C. F. I. S., & Nahiduzzaman, M. (2023). An Overview of Digital Media Literacy in Digital Bangladesh. Jurnal Cita Hukum, 11(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v11i2.34755

Inal, Y., Mishra, D., & Torkildsby, A. B. (2022). An Analysis of Web Content Accessibility of Municipality Websites for People with Disabilities in Norway. Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546155.3547272

Information and Communication Technology Division. (2022). Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline for Inclusive Accessibility 2022. https://ictd.gov.bd/site/notices/b0a852a8-6760-4bfa-9c45-6f223e704425/Digital-Service-and-Web-Designing-Guideline-for-Inclusive-Accessibility-2022-%E0%A6%85%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A3%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0

Jeba, M. T., Sadia, F., Rahman, T., Hossain, K. M. I., & Bhuiyan, T. (2020). Usability and Accessibility Testing: A Study on Public Sector and Government Websites of Bangladesh (pp. 666–674). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30577-2_59

Jordanoski, Z., & Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. (2023). The challenge of web accessibility: an evaluation of selected government websites and service portals of high, middle and low-income countries. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/3614321.3614343

Lempola, A., Poranen, T., & Zhang, Z. (2024, June). Comparing Automatic Accessibility Testing Tools. Proceedings of TKTP 2024: Annual Doctoral Symposium of Computer Science.

Mateus, D. A., Silva, C. A., De Oliveira, A. F. B. A., Costa, H., & Freire, A. P. (2021). A Systematic Mapping of Accessibility Problems Encountered on Websites and Mobile Apps: A Comparison Between Automated Tests, Manual Inspections and User Evaluations. Journal on Interactive Systems, 12(1), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.5753/jis.2021.1778

Narasimhan, N. (2021). Digital Accessibility in the Asia-Pacific Region. In Accessible Technology and the Developing World (pp. 106–127). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846413.003.0006

Paul, S. (2023). Accessibility analysis using WCAG 2.1: evidence from Indian e-government websites. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22(2), 663–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00861-9

Appendix A: List of Evaluated Government E-Services

No.	Service Name	Domain/Ministry/Governing Body
1	Taxpayer’s Identification Number (TIN) Registration	National Board of Revenue (NBR), Ministry of Finance
2	Social Security Program (DSS-MIS)	Department of Social Services, Ministry of Social Welfare
3	Birth and Death Registration	Office of the Registrar General, Local Government Division
4	National University Portal	Ministry of Education
5	Grievance Redress System	Cabinet Division
6	Land Mutation	Ministry of Land
7	Police Clearance Certificate	Bangladesh Police, Ministry of Home Affairs
8	e-TDS (Electronic Tax Deducted at Source)	National Board of Revenue (NBR), Ministry of Finance
9	Customs Bond Management	National Board of Revenue (NBR), Ministry of Finance
10	Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) Portal	Rapid Action Battalion, Ministry of Home Affairs
11	Bangladesh Open University	Ministry of Education
12	National Legal Aid Services Organization	Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
13	E-GP (Electronic Government Procurement)	Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU), Ministry of Planning
14	MyGov Portal	Aspire to Innovate (a2i), ICT Division
15	Surokkha (COVID-19 Vaccine Registration)	ICT Division, Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology
16	Boesl (Bangladesh Overseas Employment and Services Ltd.)	Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment
17	Online Passport Application	Department of Immigration and Passports, Ministry of Home Affairs
18	Bangladesh Railway E-Ticketing	Bangladesh Railway, Ministry of Railways
19	Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS)	Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
20	Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board (BREB)	Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources
21	Department of Public Libraries	Ministry of Cultural Affairs
22	Bangladesh National Museum	Ministry of Cultural Affairs
23	Dhaka Power Distribution Company (DPDC)	Power Division, Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources
24	Dhaka Electric Supply Company (DESCO)	Power Division, Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources
25	Bangladesh Election Commission	Independent Constitutional Body
26	Supreme Court of Bangladesh	Independent Judicial Body
27	Ministry of Foreign Affairs	Ministry of Foreign Affairs
28	Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA)	Prime Minister’s Office
29	Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms (RJSC)	Ministry of Commerce
30	Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks	Ministry of Industries
31	Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC)	Ministry of Public Administration (Secretariat Support)
32	University Grants Commission (UGC)	Ministry of Education
33	National Board of Revenue (NBR) – Main Portal	Ministry of Finance
34	Bangladesh Bank	Ministry of Finance
35	Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE)	Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) (Regulator)
36	Chittagong Stock Exchange (CSE)	Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) (Regulator)
37	Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC)	Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology
38	National Human Rights Commission	Independent Statutory Body
39	Anti-Corruption Commission	Independent Commission
40	Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS)	Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning
41	Department of Environment	Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
42	Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB)	Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism
43	Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA)	Ministry of Road Transport and Bridges
44	Department of Fisheries	Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
45	Department of Agricultural Extension	Ministry of Agriculture
46	Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation (BSCIC)	Ministry of Industries
47	Microcredit Regulatory Authority	Financial Institutions Division, Ministry of Finance