Blank checklist, printable form
Hospitality Accessibility Checklist
Booking flow · Accessible rooms · Amenities · Booking-engine scope
Blank checklist for offline completion.
Tick one box per row. Add comments and evidence references in the Notes column as needed.
Online booking flow
WCAG 1.3.1, 1.3.5, 2.4.7, 3.3.2, 3.3.7, the date picker, room selection, guest-details form and confirmation page must all be keyboard-operable with proper labelling and no redundant entry.
| Ref | Severity | Requirement | Status | Notes / Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOTEL-BK-01 | Critical | Date picker is keyboard-operable.Check-in and check-out date pickers must be navigable with arrow keys and selectable with Enter or Space. Custom calendar widgets are a common failure point. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-BK-02 | Major | Room-selection labels are not colour-only.Room categories must carry a text label, not only a coloured swatch or icon. WCAG 1.4.1 Use of Colour (Level A). | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-BK-03 | Critical | Guest-details form: every input labelled, autocomplete set on standard fields.Name, email, address, phone and payment fields all need a visible <label>. Standard tokens (name, email, tel, address-line1, postal-code, cc-number) must be set on autocomplete. WCAG 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose (Level AA). | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-BK-04 | Critical | Don't ask for the same information twice, WCAG 2.2 SC 3.3.7 Redundant Entry.Information already collected (name, email, postcode) must not be requested again later in the same flow without pre-population or an explicit 'use same details' option. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-BK-05 | Major | Confirmation page is keyboard-reachable and announces completion.When booking succeeds, focus should move to the confirmation heading or a status region with role='status' / aria-live='polite' so screen-reader users hear the outcome. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A |
Accessible-room availability disclosure
EAA Annex I §IV(g) + WCAG 1.1.1, 1.3.1, guests must be able to filter for accessible rooms, see per-room accessibility features, and read meaningful alt text on accessible-room photography.
| Ref | Severity | Requirement | Status | Notes / Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOTEL-RM-01 | Critical | A filter or toggle for accessible rooms is visible in the search UI.Disabled guests must be able to search for accessible rooms directly in the room-results page, not via a hidden 'special requirements' modal or a phone call. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-RM-02 | Major | Specific accessibility features per room are listed.List the actual features, roll-in shower, lowered bed height, hearing-loop in room, visual fire-alarm, fridge for medication, grab bars, accessible-route from car park. A generic 'accessible' tag is not enough. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-RM-03 | Major | Photos of accessible rooms have alt text describing the accessibility feature.Alt text should describe what makes the room accessible, 'Bathroom with roll-in shower, grab bars and lowered sink', not just 'Hotel bathroom'. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-RM-04 | Minor | 'Contact for full accessibility details' route is published as text, not only a chat widget.Guests must be able to email or call a human about accessibility. A live-chat-only route excludes users who cannot use chat (deaf-blind users, users with no chat-compatible AT). | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A |
On-site amenities & wayfinding pages
WCAG 1.1.1, 1.3.1, 2.4.2 + Annex V scope, accessible parking, lift coverage, restaurant menus and activity booking must be accessible or accompanied by an alternative-format route.
| Ref | Severity | Requirement | Status | Notes / Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOTEL-AM-01 | Minor | Accessible parking spaces and distance to entrance are disclosed.Guests need to know in advance whether accessible parking is on-site, how far from the main entrance and step-free routes are. This is a practical accessibility detail beyond WCAG. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-AM-02 | Minor | Lift / elevator coverage and maximum platform size are disclosed.Some floors may be reached only by stairs (e.g. Attic-style rooms). Lift platform dimensions matter for power-chair and large-wheelchair users. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-AM-03 | Major | Restaurant menu is accessible, text or accessible PDF, not menu-as-image.Restaurant menus published as images (PNG / JPG) or untagged PDFs cannot be read by screen readers, translated by browsers, or resized for low-vision guests. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-AM-04 | Major | Spa / activity booking flows are accessible OR an alternative-format contact route is published.If spa, gym, or activity bookings use a third-party widget, that widget must be accessible, or an alternative route (phone, email, text-relay) must be clearly published. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A |
Document downloads
EN 301 549 §10, booking confirmation PDFs and welcome packs need to be tagged or have accessible alternatives.
| Ref | Severity | Requirement | Status | Notes / Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOTEL-DC-01 | Major | Booking confirmation PDFs are tagged (PDF/UA-1).The emailed confirmation PDF (or itinerary attachment) must be a tagged PDF so screen-reader users can read dates, room type, total and check-in instructions in order. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-DC-02 | Minor | Welcome packs / room directories are accessible OR an alternative is offered.In-room directories explaining WiFi, breakfast hours, evacuation routes and amenities are often published as untagged PDFs. They must be tagged or an alternative format (large print, HTML page, audio file) offered. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A |
Third-party booking engine scope
Annex V scope language, when the booking flow is hosted by a third party (Booking.com, Expedia, Hotelbeds, Cloudbeds, SiteMinder), the accessibility statement must name the vendor and describe the operator's monitoring process.
| Ref | Severity | Requirement | Status | Notes / Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOTEL-TP-01 | Major | If the booking flow is third-party-hosted, the Annex V scope statement names the vendor.When booking is embedded from Booking.com, Expedia, Hotelbeds, Cloudbeds, SiteMinder or similar, the accessibility statement must name the vendor, identify scoped paths and describe the operator's monitoring process. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-TP-02 | Major | Vendor liaison process for accessibility issues is documented.Operators must have a documented process for escalating accessibility issues to their booking-engine vendor, even if the surface is out of scope, the operator's monitoring is in scope. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A | |
| HOTEL-TP-03 | Critical | Hotel's own pages (room descriptions, gallery, on-site info) remain the operator's responsibility regardless of booking-engine scope.Annex V scope language for third-party booking engines does not cover the operator's own marketing pages. Those must meet WCAG 2.2 AA in full, regardless of whether transactional pages are scoped out. | ☐ Pass ☐ Partial ☐ FAIL ☐ N/A |