Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised)vsEN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services
See exactly how Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) controls map to EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) maps to EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services with 40% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 30 Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) controls identifies 18 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 30 controls analysed | 691 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 21 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 691 frameworks.
Chapter 4: Hardware(9 mappings)
Chapter 5: Software(5 mappings)
Chapter 6: Support Documentation and Services(1 mappings)
Chapter 7: Referenced Standards(1 mappings)
Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements(2 mappings)
Functional Performance(1 mappings)
Hardware(1 mappings)
+1 more mappings
Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 691 frameworks.
Create Free Account →Free forever, no credit card required
A Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) to EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services controls your existing Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 40% in the header counts how many Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) comparisons
Other EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 691 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 691 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) and EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) has 30 controls across its framework, while EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services covers 42 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (40% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria, where 5 Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) controls have no direct EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services equivalent.
How many controls map between Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) and EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
Of 30 total Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) controls, 12 map directly to EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services controls, representing 40% coverage. The remaining 18 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) to EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
18 Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) controls have no direct equivalent in EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services. The highest concentration of gaps is in Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria with 5 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between Section 508 - ICT Accessibility (Revised) and EN 301 549 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
The domain with the highest gap count is Chapter 3: Functional Performance Criteria (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.