A statement must name test methods and the last update date

What it is

“We tested” with no method leaves the reader unsure whether a scanner or a screen reader was used; with no date, unsure which year's site was tested. Accessibility statement currency writes timeliness as two checkable sentences: what method was used (automation, expert walkthrough, which assistive-technology and browser combinations, whether WCAG-EM sampling), and the date of the last full check. Neither is optional. A date without a method is a timestamp on a black box; a method without a date is the recipe for a meal already cold.

Why it happens

Conformance is a snapshot. Method tells others how large the residual risk is — a statement that only ran automated checks has almost nothing to say about wrong names or keyboard traps. Date tells others how old the snapshot is. The second layer is that the two expose each other: a full method with an eighteen-month-old date admits that later templates and experiments never entered scope; a fresh date with a single scanner as method means the new snapshot is still blind. Publishing the method also stops the organisation swapping in a cheaper test while keeping the old conclusion — a new method is a new statement.

Studying it

Code a set of public statements: whether they have a date, name tools, name assistive-technology combinations, name a sampling method. Cross “age of the date” with “completeness of method,” and see which statements are still claimed as current after they have expired.

Independent variables: whether method elements are complete; age of the date. Dependent variables: whether a reader could reproduce the test; match with live failures; whether the organisation updated the conclusion after a method change.

Interviews can ask “which sentence in the statement do you trust”; they cannot replace coding the method fields.

Where it stops holding

Testers' names and disability status need not be published; combinations are enough (NVDA with Firefox, VoiceOver with Safari). A green continuous-monitoring dashboard does not replace a full-check date unless the statement names the monitoring's scope and method and admits what semantics it cannot cover. A small copy edit need not rewrite the whole method section; touching templates, the component library, or the sampling method must change the date. Confidential internals of an audit can stay in an annex; the public still needs a readable method and date, not a wholly classified block.

Applying it

• Lock two blocks in the statement: “how we tested” (standard edition, sampling, automated tools, manual steps, assistive technology and browsers) and “date of last check,” with an optional next-planned date.
• Any change of method or scope must change the date. Changing the copyright year in the footer is not a check.
• “We test regularly” may not replace a specific date.
• How to check: open the statement and find method and date. Missing either fails. Sample one page with the combination the statement names. If the claimed conclusion conflicts with that sample, the sample is not wrong — currency or method was over-claimed. Change the date or the conclusion.

Related

• Same group: J1.12.1 A statement must list known failures, not only claim overall compliance · J1.12.2 A statement must offer a channel for reporting newly found barriers · J1.12.4 Conformance documents are useless unless they are themselves accessible
• Nearby: J1.10.3 Dynamically generated content must be retested after each update · J5.07 Compatibility Testing
• Search terms: accessibility statement currency · WCAG-EM · test method disclosure