alt text consultancy
ASPIREpapers 008
The Untold Accessibility Story: How Publishers Are Doing More Than They're Saying.
A Post-EAA Survey of Publisher Accessibility Statements.
Huw Alexander
27 January 2026
An accessible Word version of this report is available for download at the foot of the page.
Introduction
You'd never publish a book without marketing copy. So why implement accessibility work and not tell anyone?
​
This quote is taken from European Accessibility Act + accessibility statements: An ASPIRE overview (October 2024), an ASPIRE Paper written in the months leading up to the implementation of the European Accessibility Act.
​
The EAA came into force on 28 June 2025, requiring publishers to provide accessibility information to users. But the EAA doesn't specify how — there's no template, no prescribed format. This freedom is an opportunity: accessibility statements can tell the story of your work, your values, and your investment.
​
We reviewed the accessibility statements of 25 major publishers to understand how the industry is communicating with users post-EAA. Using 5 key indicators derived from ASPIRE criteria and a series of qualitative measures (including GCA-certification and PAAG Charter commitment), we evaluated how effectively publishers are telling their accessibility story.
What we found was an opportunity gap: publishers are doing more accessibility work than they're communicating. Their story isn't being told.
​
This isn't about compliance failures. It's about missed opportunities:
​
-
Publishers with Benetech Global Certified Accessible (GCA) certification who barely mention it.
-
PAAG Accessible Publishing Charter signatories who don't reference their membership and commitment.
-
Image description workflows that are not communicated to users and readers.
-
Comprehensive accessibility programmes hidden behind minimal public statements.
The accessible publishing work is being done. Users just can't discover it.
What We Found: The Opportunity Gap
The survey uncovered the following elements:
The Good News
​
-
96% of publishers surveyed have some form of accessibility statement or information.
-
52% of publishers surveyed are PAAG Charter signatories — demonstrating industry commitment.
-
40% hold Benetech GCA certification for born-accessible ebook production.
-
1 publisher achieved a perfect score across all indicators.
The Opportunity
​
-
Overall, publishers are communicating 50% of their potential accessibility story — leaving half untold.
-
56% don't mention image descriptions at all in their accessibility statements.
-
68% don't date their statements — missing a chance to demonstrate currency and engagement.
-
Despite their certified production capabilities, GCA-certified publishers score only marginally higher on communication indicators (5.7 vs 5.4 out of 11).
-
We found GCA-certified publishers at both extremes of our scoring range.
-
One major publisher has no accessibility statement at all.
The gap between what publishers are achieving and what they're communicating represents unrealised value — both for users who can't discover accessible content, and for publishers who aren't getting credit for their investment.
What Does Excellence Look Like?
The following chart compares indicator performance across the scoring spectrum — from the top-performing publishers to those at the bottom of our survey.
The top-ranked publishers in our survey demonstrate what's possible when accessibility communication is treated as an opportunity rather than an obligation. Their statements include:
​
-
Specific commitments: "All new ebook titles include alt text for images."
-
Clear format information: EPUB3, PDF, alternative format request processes with response times.
-
Named contacts with specific accessibility roles.
-
Platform documentation with VPATs/ACRs available.
-
Certifications prominently displayed (Benetech GCA, where held).
-
Charter memberships referenced (PAAG, ABC).
-
Regular updates with visible dates.
-
A roadmap for ongoing work — backlist remediation, future improvements.
These statements tell a story. They demonstrate investment, commitment, and respect for users. They're marketing copy for accessibility work — and they're exactly what the EAA envisions.
The Survey Results
We reviewed 25 major publishers against 5 indicators derived from ASPIRE criteria.
​
-
Discoverability: the ease of discoverability of accessibility information on the website.
-
Currency: the date of the most recent update of the statement.
-
Contact: level of contact information provided.
-
Formats: the formats available for users.
-
Image Descriptions: the provision of alt text in publisher titles.
The maximum possible score is 11 points.
Score Distribution
Indicator Performance
Discoverability (80%) and Contact (72%) are the strongest indicators. Currency and Image Descriptions are the weakest, achieving just 26% and 32% of maximum points respectively — representing the clearest opportunities for improvement.
Patterns We Observed
1. ASPIRE review helps publishers tell their story​
​
​Four publishers in this survey have previously undergone ASPIRE review and achieved Gold certification. While it's unsurprising that publishers who engaged with the ASPIRE process perform well against ASPIRE criteria, their results demonstrate what focused attention on accessibility communication can achieve:
The value of ASPIRE review lies in the process itself: a structured assessment that identifies gaps, provides specific recommendations, and helps publishers communicate their accessibility work effectively. The results show what's achievable when publishers invest in their accessibility statements.
​
The improvement is consistent across all five indicators:
​This difference is visible across all five indicators:
One ASPIRE Gold publisher holds neither PAAG membership nor GCA certification — demonstrating that excellence in accessibility communication is achievable through focused attention on the statement itself, independent of other industry affiliations.
2. The capability vs communication gap
GCA certification demonstrates that a publisher has implemented born-accessible ebook workflows. Yet despite this certified capability, GCA-certified publishers score only marginally higher on our communication indicators (5.7 vs 5.4 out of 11).
​
We found GCA-certified publishers at both extremes of our scoring range — reinforcing that production capability and communication transparency are independent variables. A publisher can have world-class accessible production workflows while providing users with almost no information about those capabilities.
3. PAAG membership correlates with transparency
PAAG Charter signatories score significantly higher on average (7.3 vs 3.6 out of 11). The Charter's focus on embedding accessibility across the publishing ecosystem appears to translate into better communication practices.
​
However, membership alone doesn't guarantee good communication. Two PAAG signatories score 4 or below, suggesting the Charter's commitments aren't yet consistently reflected in public statements.
​
When we examine the interaction between PAAG and GCA status, the pattern becomes clearer:
PAAG membership appears to be a stronger predictor of communication quality than GCA certification. Publishers with PAAG membership average around 7/11 regardless of GCA status, while those without PAAG average around 3.5/11 — even when GCA-certified.
4. Academic/STM publishers lead the way
Academic/STM/Professional publishers outperform the Trade sector:
5 of the 6 top-scoring publishers are in the Academic/STM/Professional sector. This may reflect closer engagement with institutional accessibility requirements and research community needs.
5. Image descriptions: the hidden investment
56% of publishers don't mention image descriptions at all — and some of those that do provide only vague statements rather than specific commitments. This explains why publishers achieved only 32% of possible points on this indicator. Yet industry conversations suggest far more publishers have implemented alt text workflows, trained authors, or are actively remediating backlists.
The sector divide is stark. Academic/STM/Professional publishers average 43% on image description communication, with 59% mentioning the topic. Trade publishers average just 8%, with only 1 in 8 mentioning image descriptions at all.
Perhaps the most striking finding concerns GCA-certified publishers. Despite having certified born-accessible production workflows — which include image description requirements — 60% of GCA publishers don't mention image descriptions in their accessibility statements. GCA certification appears to have no positive correlation with communicating about image descriptions:
This is precisely the kind of information users need. A simple statement — "Our ebooks include alternative text for images" — would significantly improve many accessibility statements. For GCA-certified publishers already doing this work, the communication gap represents a significant missed opportunity.
5. Image descriptions: the hidden investment
68% of publishers don't date their accessibility statements. An undated statement leaves users wondering: is this current policy, or something from 2019? Dating a statement takes seconds and immediately signals thoughtful engagement.
​
Only 20% of publishers have a statement dated within the last 12 months. A further 12% have dates, but they're over a year old — suggesting statements that were created and then forgotten.
The correlation with PAAG membership is striking. Every single publisher with a recently dated statement is a PAAG signatory. Among non-PAAG publishers, not one has a current date on their accessibility statement:
GCA-only publishers — those with certification but without PAAG membership — have a 100% undated rate. This reinforces the broader pattern: GCA certification, while valuable for production quality, does not appear to influence communication practices. PAAG membership is the differentiating factor.
​Understanding the landscape
GCA certification demonstrates commitment to producing accessible content — the technical foundation that makes accessibility possible. PAAG membership signals commitment to embedding accessibility principles across the publishing ecosystem. ASPIRE review helps publishers communicate that work effectively to users.
Each serves a different purpose. None is a substitute for the others. And none of them is the end goal.
The end goal is the reader: someone who can discover what's available, understand what to expect, and access the content they need. Certifications and memberships are means to that end — valuable signals of commitment, but only valuable if they translate into a better reader experience.
The best accessibility statements we reviewed understand this. They don't just list credentials — they speak directly to users about what they'll find and how to get help. That's the untold story this report is asking publishers to tell.
The flow from certification to communication
The diagram below shows how publishers with different certifications and memberships performed in our survey. Each flow represents publishers moving from their starting point (left) to their communication score band (right).
The patterns are striking:
​
-
ASPIRE Gold publishers flow exclusively to Excellent and Good — none fall below.
-
PAAG members (with or without GCA) reach Excellent, but some fall to Limited — membership helps, but doesn't guarantee strong communication.
-
GCA-only publishers never reach Excellent or Good — certified production capability alone doesn't translate to communication quality.
-
Publishers with neither cluster at Moderate and Poor.
The visual reinforces what the data shows: production certification (GCA) and communication quality are independent variables. PAAG membership correlates with better outcomes. ASPIRE review delivers consistent results.
8 Elements your accessibility statement should include
Based on EAA requirements, ASPIRE criteria, and best practice observed in our survey:
​
1. Content accessibility information. Not just platform or website accessibility. Tell users about the actual books, journals, and learning materials.
​
2. Image description policy. Do your ebooks include alt text? Since when? For what proportion of titles? Be specific.
​
3. Available formats. EPUB3, PDF, audio, braille partnerships? What can users request? How long does it take?
​
4. A date. When was this statement last updated? Currency builds trust.
​
5. A dedicated contact. An accessibility-specific email or named person, not just a generic contact form.
​
6. Standards and certifications. WCAG conformance, EPUB Accessibility Specifications, Benetech GCA — if you've earned it, display it.
​
7. Memberships and commitments. PAAG Charter, ABC Charter, DAISY partnership. These signal commitment to users and the industry.
​
8. Honest limitations and a roadmap. What are you still working on? What's coming next? Transparency builds trust more than claims of perfection.
The ASPIRE Philosophy
ASPIRE measures communication, not capability. We've always believed that telling users what to expect is itself an accessibility feature.
​
An accessibility statement is an ongoing dialogue with your readers and users. It offers you the opportunity to say, "We're doing X because of Y." It's a transparent, honest, practical, user-friendly document that reaches your whole audience.
​
This survey reinforces that belief. The gap we've identified isn't in what publishers are doing — it's in what users can discover. That 50% untold story represents significant unrealised value. Publishers have great stories to tell. Many just aren't telling them yet.
​
This is all carrot, no stick. We want publishers to succeed. The EAA provides the framework; your accessibility statement provides the opportunity. Let it tell your story.
How ASPIRE Can Help
ASPIRE provides expert assessment of publisher and platform accessibility statements. You'll receive a comprehensive report with recommended enhancements, helping you communicate your accessibility work effectively to users.
​
The review process is confidential. Our goal is to help you tell your accessibility story — not to criticise. We provide the criteria upfront; there are no surprises.
We've helped publishers and platforms across the industry create and refine their accessibility statements.
​
Contact textBOX about an ASPIRE review: aspire@textboxdigital.com
Learn more about the ASPIRE review process: www.textboxdigital.com/aspire-home
Methodology
This survey assessed 25 major publishers against 5 key ASPIRE indicators. Publishers were selected from English-language academic/STM/professional and trade publishing sectors.
Each publisher was assessed based solely on the content of their designated accessibility statement page. Information not present on that page was not credited, reflecting the user experience of someone seeking accessibility information.
Scored indicators (11 points total)
Qualitative observations
Additional observations were recorded for GCA certification status, PAAG Charter signatory status, and ASPIRE Gold certification. These inform the narrative findings.
​
Results were cross-referenced against the PAAG Charter signatory list and Benetech GCA certified publisher list to identify gaps between achievement and communication.
All accessibility statements were assessed on 22 January 2026. Any subsequent changes to publisher statements are not reflected in this survey.
Publisher identities have been anonymised. The purpose of this survey is to identify industry patterns and opportunities, not to criticise individual organisations.
Contact textBOX about an ASPIRE review
If you’re interested in the ASPIRE approach to writing accessibility statements, please contact us at aspire@textboxdigital.com. We’ll be happy to discuss your issues and help you craft a statement that tells your accessibility story.
Download this report
This report is available in accessible Word format at the following link:
