What Is AS EN 301 549?
Use AS EN 301 549 as a version-specific ICT procurement and evaluation reference. Assess its applicable requirements separately from Australian DDA and DSE duties.
AS EN 301 549 is an Australian adoption of a European accessibility standard for information and communication technology. It can inform procurement and evaluation across more than web pages or PDF files.
Establish the referenced edition
Record the Australian edition required by the institution's policy or contract. Check its normative text and referenced European version. A later European release does not automatically change an existing Australian procurement requirement. ETSI's standard resources provide European context; obtain the applicable Australian publication through the institution's standards service.
Map the product and tasks
Depending on scope, assessment can involve web content, non-web documents, software, hardware, support and communication functions. Identify the relevant clauses for the actual product rather than treating a web-checker result as evidence for the entire ICT standard.
WCAG-related requirements are part of the standard's framework. Meeting a selection of WCAG checks does not establish every applicable requirement. Keep evaluated and unevaluated areas visible.
Apply the Australian context
The DDA and DSE framework concerns Australian education access, consultation and reasonable adjustments. The DSE itself does not prescribe a WCAG version or the US Title II compliance dates. Assess actual legal and contractual obligations with the responsible institutional teams.
Request version-specific evidence, evaluate important user tasks and document gaps and correction responsibilities. An ACR can support procurement, but its scope and underlying evidence need scrutiny.
Aelira Core is beta software. Supported workflows can apply eligible partial fixes and record outcomes, but some inputs need manual work or cannot produce a downloadable remediated file. Review the actual saved output, unresolved findings and content preservation before publication. Automated scores describe implemented checks rather than accessibility conformance. Inspect the public source and release documentation and evaluate a representative authorized sample before planning a rollout.
Aelira Team
•Accessibility EngineersThe Aelira team is building beta accessibility tools for higher education. Institutions can evaluate selected checks and partial fixes on their own files, with human review required before publication.
Related Articles
What Procurement Should Demand in an Accessibility AI Contract: A Due-Diligence Checklist
Eleven proposed due-diligence terms for AI-assisted accessibility procurement. Adapt acceptance, evidence, data-flow and exit commitments to institutional needs.
FERPA, Cloud Inference, and the Data-Sovereignty Question Procurement Should Be Asking
Map document and inference data flows, review FERPA conditions and contract terms, and verify what a self-hosted deployment actually sends outside the institution.
What Accessibility Scores Establish — and Why Review Records Matter
Use scanner scores within their measured scope, and retain review records tied to exact files. Neither a score nor an audit trail guarantees conformance or an investigation outcome.