Wahid bin Ahsan, Samia Bari, Tanim Ahamed, Md. Shahadat Hossain, Md. Shamsul Arifin,
Md. Osman Gani, M. H. Taohid
Userhub, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
Government e-services in Bangladesh are central to welfare, taxation, and civil registration, yet their accessibility for people with disabilities remains underexamined. This study audits 47 Bangladeshi government e-services, recorded across 74 website entries, against WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA criteria using WebAIM WAVE and manual inspection. Across 1,534 finding records, the audit recorded 14,308 accessibility indicators, of which 8,838 were flagged as errors and most of the remainder were accessibility features. Missing form labels, very low contrast, and empty buttons were the most frequently recorded error types. Error-labelled counts mapped mainly to the Perceivable (62.4%) and Operable (23.6%) principles and predominantly to Level A criteria (64.5%), indicating potential barriers for screen-reader, low-vision, and keyboard-only users on home, login, and application pages. Counts are not deduplicated across WCAG criteria and are not verified distinct failures. The paper also proposes an exploratory three-tier Accessibility Maturity Model (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) to support future benchmarking once verified failure counts are available. The findings support targeted remediation, developer training, and enforcement of Bangladesh’s 2022 Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline for Inclusive Accessibility.
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, a prior evaluation of 140 Bangladeshi government web pages reported a 92% accessibility error rate within its evaluated sample (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 (World Wide Web Consortium (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 accessibility audit of 47 high-impact e-government services, evaluated as distinct user workflows recorded across 74 government website entries. Using a hybrid methodology combining automated scanning with expert-led manual inspection, the study examines a merged dataset of 1,534 finding records and 14,308 recorded accessibility-related indicator counts. Because the aggregate includes accessibility features and repeated mappings, it cannot be treated as a verified total of distinct violations. 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 addressing these gaps, it contributes descriptive evidence and an exploratory framework 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 recorded website entries, 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 record accessibility-related indicators 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 (World Wide Web Consortium (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
The merged dataset contains 1,534 finding records from the 47 services, covering critical user flows including homepages, application forms, login interfaces, registration workflows, dashboards, and tracking portals. These records do not establish that 1,534 distinct pages were evaluated. Evaluated pages were scanned using the WebAIM WAVE tool to detect common accessibility indicators, including 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
The numeric Issue Count field sums to 14,308 recorded accessibility-related indicator counts: 8,838 counts labelled as errors or contrast errors, 5,449 as accessibility features, and 21 without an Error Type classification. Nine finding records have no numeric count. These aggregates were categorized by their recorded WCAG success criteria and conformance levels, service, page type, interaction step, and affected user group. The recorded error-labelled counts have not been independently verified as distinct failures, and the records include repeated WCAG mappings, in which a single observation is entered under more than one success criterion.
These results informed the proposal of a three-tier Accessibility Maturity Model, informed by accessibility-metrics literature (Brajnik & Vigo, 2019). The model describes Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced thresholds as a possible approach to monitoring accessibility problems and prioritizing interventions; empirical service assignments require distinct, verified failure counts (see Benchmarking Accessibility).
Findings
This study evaluated websites offering 47 recorded 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 accessibility. Across 1,534 finding records, the available numeric entries sum to 14,308 accessibility-related indicator counts, including features as well as error-labelled entries. These counts are not independently verified numbers of distinct WCAG violations or evaluated pages. This section describes the source-coded error distribution, page-type patterns, and potential user impacts, supported by visualizations.
Error Distribution
The recorded indicators were distributed across services related to higher education, public safety, social protection, and civil registration. Some source service labels carry particularly large aggregates; however, such totals can include positive accessibility features and repeated WCAG assignments. They are therefore not suitable for ranking services by distinct violations or accessibility conformance without further verification. These services span information-heavy platforms and form-based transactional systems.
Among the 8,838 error-labelled indicator counts, case- and whitespace-normalized source labels included 3,373 ‘Missing form label’ counts (38.2%), 2,169 ‘Very low contrast’ counts (24.5%), and 1,257 ‘Empty button’ counts (14.2%). The remaining 2,039 counts (23.1%) span other recorded error-name labels. These labels indicate potential form, contrast, button, and structural accessibility issues, but their counts have not been deduplicated or individually verified as WCAG failures.
Among error-labelled counts, the source-coded WCAG principle assignments were Perceivable (5,513; 62.4%), Operable (2,086; 23.6%), Understandable (1,110; 12.6%), and Robust (107; 1.2%), with 22 (0.2%) assigned mixed or malformed principle labels. Source-coded conformance levels among error-labelled counts were Level A 5,698 (64.5%) and Level AA 3,138 (35.5%), with 2 coded A,AA. These are source classifications, not independent determinations of WCAG nonconformance.
Table 1: Recorded Error-Name Categories Across Bangladeshi Government Services
| Recorded error-name category | Recorded counts | Share of 8,838 | Description |
| Missing form label | 3,373 | 38.2% | Case- and whitespace-normalized source error label |
| Very low contrast | 2,169 | 24.5% | Case- and whitespace-normalized source error label |
| Empty button | 1,257 | 14.2% | Case- and whitespace-normalized source error label |
| Other recorded error names | 2,039 | 23.1% | All remaining error-labelled codes, including entries requiring further classification review |
| Total | 8,838 | 100.0% | Error-labelled indicator counts, not verified distinct violations |
Source: Authors’ analysis of the May 2025 merged dataset. Error-labelled counts only (n = 8,838); category names normalized for case and whitespace. Counts include repeated WCAG mappings (e.g., a single ‘Missing form label’ observation is often recorded under several success criteria), so shares reflect mapping practice as well as frequency; they are not verified distinct violations.
Figure 1: Source-Coded WCAG Principles Among Error-Labelled Counts
Figure 1 displays the source-coded WCAG principle assignment of 8,838 error-labelled numeric counts. Perceivable accounts for 5,513 (62.4%), Operable 2,086 (23.6%), Understandable 1,110 (12.6%), Robust 107 (1.2%), and mixed or malformed coding 22 (0.2%). These are recorded indicator mappings, not independently verified distinct WCAG failures. Source: Authors’ analysis, May 2025.
Page-Specific Patterns
Accessibility-related indicator labels were recorded across various page types, indicating potential barriers throughout critical user journeys. Before page-type comparisons, Figure 2 distinguishes error-labelled counts from accessibility features and unclassified counts within the 14,308 aggregate. Figure 3 then groups the 8,838 error-labelled counts by recorded page type. These descriptive patterns warrant targeted verification rather than a claim that every coded count represents a distinct accessibility failure.
Figure 2: Recorded Accessibility Indicator Counts by Source Classification
Figure 2 separates the 14,308 recorded numeric indicator counts into 8,838 error-labelled counts (61.8%), 5,449 accessibility feature counts (38.1%), and 21 unclassified counts (0.1%). Accessibility features are not failures; the error-labelled counts also remain subject to deduplication and coding review. Source: Authors’ analysis, May 2025.
Figure 3: Error-Labelled Indicator Counts by Recorded Page Type
Figure 3 distributes 8,838 error-labelled indicator counts across harmonized source page-type categories: home/landing (2,351), login/account/registration (1,915), application/transaction (1,837), information/navigation (1,716), grievance/reporting (549), status/verification (416), mixed interface (30), and other/ambiguous (24). These groupings use documented label harmonization; they do not establish page-level prevalence or unique failures. Source: Authors’ analysis, May 2025.
User Impacts
Missing form labels (3,373 source-coded counts) can obstruct screen-reader navigation (WCAG 3.3.2; Inal et al., 2022), while low contrast (2,169) can reduce readability for low-vision users (WCAG 1.4.3; Mateus et al., 2021). Empty buttons (1,257) may impede identification of controls by assistive technologies. Other recorded labels concern alternative text, links, and heading structure. These are potential user impacts of the recorded issue types; the aggregate counts have not been manually validated as distinct WCAG failures. These accessibility gaps reflect the broader challenge of inclusive service delivery in Bangladesh’s evolving e-government ecosystem.
Benchmarking Accessibility: A Maturity Classification
The proposed Accessibility Maturity Model is intended to support benchmarking of WCAG 2.1 compliance across government e-services, in line with the Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline for Inclusive Accessibility (Information and Communication Technology Division, 2022). It describes three author-defined thresholds for future assessment of verified WCAG 2.1-related failures. Informed by accessibility-metrics literature (Brajnik & Vigo, 2019), the authors propose Beginner (>50), Intermediate (20–50), and Advanced (<20) as exploratory bands rather than established maturity levels. The thresholds are not themselves evidence of WCAG conformance, and empirical service assignments require verified, comparable failure counts.
Model Structure
The model uses the authors’ proposed thresholds (>50, 20–50, and <20 failures). These exploratory cutoffs were informed by accessibility-metrics literature but were not empirically derived or calibrated in this dataset. They have not been validated as measures of relative accessibility maturity or WCAG conformance. Future use would require distinct, verified failures, comparable assessment coverage and exposure, and consideration of issue severity. The categories are conceptual rather than a validated distribution of the 47 recorded service labels:
- Beginner (>50 verified failures): Services with numerous confirmed barriers that may require interface redesign and extensive remediation.
- Intermediate (20–50 verified failures): Services with confirmed problems potentially amenable to focused remediation and iterative testing (Inal et al., 2022).
- Advanced (<20 verified failures): Services with fewer counted failures, indicating stronger adherence to WCAG 2.1 (Paul, 2023); this label does not by itself establish WCAG conformance.
The dataset does not support a validated classification of the 47 service labels into these three tiers because the source counts include features and repeated mappings.
Service-level medians and modes are not reported because the records do not provide distinct, verified failure counts. Counts of recorded indicators should not be substituted for validated compliance measures.
Application and Interpretation
Services with verified, consequential barriers would benefit from developer retraining, interface restructuring, and accessibility reviews. Services with fewer confirmed problems may require focused audits and iterative remediation. Before the model can support comparisons or examples of stronger practice, a consistent and independently verified unit of failure and observation exposure must be established.
Table 2: Proposed Accessibility Maturity Classification Thresholds
| Tier | Threshold | Observed service count | Interpretation |
| Beginner | >50 verified failures | Unverified | Proposed triage band; does not independently indicate conformance |
| Intermediate | 20–50 verified failures | Unverified | Proposed triage band; apply only with comparable failure counts |
| Advanced | <20 verified failures | Unverified | Proposed triage band; not a statement of WCAG compliance |
Illustrative thresholds proposed by the authors; no service counts or maturity rankings are validated by the merged indicator records. Source: Authors’ proposed model.
The model is an exploratory triage proposal, not a validated prioritization instrument. The descriptive analysis does not establish how many evaluated services fall within each band or which should be treated as accessibility exemplars.
Figure 4: Proposed Accessibility Maturity Thresholds (Conceptual)
Discussion
This study documents accessibility-related indicators across 47 recorded Bangladeshi e-government services, with issues of potential concern in higher education, social protection, public safety, and civil registration. Source-coded form-label, contrast, and button indicators suggest areas for further accessibility review. The recorded counts do not establish a verified ranking of services or confirm the extent to which any named platform fails WCAG 2.1 requirements.
The merged file records 14,308 accessibility-related indicator counts, including 8,838 error-labelled counts, 5,449 accessibility features, and 21 unclassified counts. Among error-labelled entries, missing form labels represent 38.2%, very low contrast 24.5%, and empty buttons 14.2% after simple label normalization (counts include repeated WCAG mappings). The reported issues are relevant to users relying on screen readers, keyboard navigation, or low-vision accommodations, but are not a verified count of unique failures. These patterns are consistent with the general accessibility concerns described in prior regional studies (Amaliah et al., 2023; Paul, 2023).
Digital Exclusion and Foundational Gaps
Level A assignments predominate among error-labelled counts (64.5%), suggesting persistent gaps in foundational accessibility practices, especially on core interaction pages such as home, application, and registration workflows. The error-labelled records primarily map to the Perceivable (62.4%) and Operable (23.6%) WCAG principles. Because these are source-coded indicators and not deduplicated failures, they do not independently establish validated service performance. In a context marked by low digital literacy and multilingual design constraints, even common interface barriers can deepen exclusion for people with disabilities and other marginalized groups.
Accessibility as a Governance Obligation
While Bangladesh’s 2022 Digital Service and Web Designing Guideline for Inclusive Accessibility (Information and Communication Technology Division, 2022) 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 leaves room for wide variance in accessibility across services, 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 outlines an exploratory scheme for organizing future service-level verification and remediation. Its author-defined thresholds have not been calibrated or validated as measures of accessibility maturity, and the available indicator records do not support assigning services to tiers.
Whether the proposed framework can distinguish services needing comprehensive remediation from those better suited to focused testing remains to be tested using verified failure counts, comparable observation exposure, and issue severity. No named service is presented here as a confirmed model of WCAG conformance on the basis of the current dataset alone.
Recommendations
To address potential accessibility barriers across 47 recorded government e-services, including 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 source-coded patterns of form-label, contrast, and button indicators. The proposed maturity framework may assist future triage only after distinct failures and consistent service-level measurement are verified.
Technical Interventions
Government developers must implement essential WCAG 2.1 compliance features to address frequently recorded accessibility issue types. 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 for normal-sized text (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. Thus, manual inspection must accompany automated scans, particularly for interactive or form-heavy pages.
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.
Comparative research on government website accessibility highlights the relevance of assessing public digital services across differing national contexts (Jordanoski & Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2023). Without routine testing and remediation, accessibility lapses may persist across public digital services.
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.
Accessibility education can address limited awareness of WCAG standards among student and early-career developers (Cao & Loiacono, 2019). 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, recorded across 74 website entries. The merged dataset contains 1,534 finding records and 14,308 recorded accessibility-related indicator counts, not 1,534 verified unique pages or 14,308 distinct violations. Of the aggregate, 8,838 counts are error-labelled, 5,449 are recorded as accessibility features, and 21 are unclassified. Frequently coded labels include form-label, contrast, and button-related issues, which may create barriers for users relying on assistive technologies and low-vision accommodations.
The proposed Accessibility Maturity Model retains three exploratory, unvalidated thresholds, but the source aggregate does not support a service-tier distribution. Any future application requires validated failure counts, comparable assessment coverage, and consideration of issue severity before it could support prioritization; the thresholds alone cannot establish WCAG conformance.
By documenting source-coded accessibility indicators across 47 e-services and outlining a provisional metrics-informed framework requiring further validation, this study contributes descriptive evidence to public-sector HCI and may inform policy discussions 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.
Correction Notice (17 October 2026)
This version corrects the reporting of the study’s aggregate counts. The total of 14,308 comprises all accessibility indicators recorded during the evaluation (8,838 error-labelled counts, 5,449 accessibility features, and 21 unclassified) and was previously described as violations; the figure of 1,534 refers to finding records rather than distinct pages. Percentages, Table 1, and Figures 1–3 have been recalculated on the error-labelled counts, and Appendix A has been updated to list the evaluated services. The proposed Accessibility Maturity Model thresholds are retained; the service-tier distribution has been withdrawn because it could not be reproduced from the evaluation records, and Table 2 and Figure 4 now present the thresholds only. Minor citation and formatting errors have also been corrected. The study’s methods and recommendations are otherwise unchanged.
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
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 Press. 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
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
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 | Bangladesh Army Recruitment Portal | Bangladesh Army, Ministry of Defence |
| 14 | National Portal – Portal Management System | 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 | Bangladesh Air Force Recruitment Portal | Bangladesh Air Force, Ministry of Defence |
| 20 | Online General Diary (GD) | Bangladesh Police, Ministry of Home Affairs |
| 21 | Bangladesh e-Visa Application | Department of Immigration and Passports, Ministry of Home Affairs |
| 22 | Bangladesh National Museum | Ministry of Cultural Affairs |
| 23 | Biman Bangladesh Airlines | Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism |
| 24 | Dhaka Electric Supply Company (DESCO) | Power Division, Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources |
| 25 | National Identity (NID) Services | NID Wing, Bangladesh Election Commission (Independent Constitutional Body) |
| 26 | Supreme Court of Bangladesh | Independent Judicial Body |
| 27 | Hajj Services Portal | Ministry of Religious Affairs |
| 28 | Integrated Social Protection Management Information System (ISPMIS) | Department of Social Services, Ministry of Social Welfare |
| 29 | Grievance Redress System – Complaint Without Login | Cabinet Division |
| 30 | Land Owner Registration Portal | Ministry of Land |
| 31 | Land Owner Single Sign-On (SSO) Portal | Ministry of Land |
| 32 | Land Services Gateway (LSG) | Ministry of Land |
| 33 | National Board of Revenue (NBR) – Main Portal | Ministry of Finance |
| 34 | Land Development Tax (LDT) Services | Ministry of Land |
| 35 | Land Record and Survey Services (DLRS) | Directorate of Land Records and Surveys, Ministry of Land |
| 36 | NTRCA Online Application and Admit Card | Non-Government Teachers’ Registration and Certification Authority (NTRCA), Ministry of Education |
| 37 | National Savings Online Services | Department of National Savings, Internal Resources Division, Ministry of Finance |
| 38 | Pension and Fund Management | Office of the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer (Pension and Fund Management), Controller General of Accounts, Finance Division |
| 39 | Automated Challan System | Finance Division, Ministry of Finance |
| 40 | VAT Online Services | National Board of Revenue (NBR), Ministry of Finance |
| 41 | e-Return (Online Income Tax Return) | National Board of Revenue (NBR), Ministry of Finance |
| 42 | e-Fire License Application System | Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs |
| 43 | Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA) | Ministry of Road Transport and Bridges |
| 44 | e-Trade License Portal | Dhaka South City Corporation and Cumilla City Corporation, with Aspire to Innovate (a2i), ICT Division |
| 45 | Land Owner Portal – Account Access (Login, Sign-up, Password Recovery) | Ministry of Land |
| 46 | ekPay (Unified Payment Platform) | Aspire to Innovate (a2i), ICT Division |
| 47 | Rapid Pass | Dhaka Transport Coordination Authority (DTCA), Ministry of Road Transport and Bridges |