Accesserty Data Note
Taiwan private accessibility badge records: a 608-record public data snapshot
This Data Note uses a 2026-07-03 snapshot of public badge data from Taiwan’s Ministry of Digital Affairs to examine which non-government applicant types appear in private accessibility badge records, and how A, AA, and AAA levels are distributed.
Citation details
- Published
- Updated
- Source snapshot date
Accesserty, “Taiwan private accessibility badge records: a 608-record public data snapshot,” source snapshot date 2026-07-03, published 2026-08-22, https://accesserty.com/en/public-data/notes/taiwan-private-accessibility-badges/.
Summary
Taiwan’s accessibility badge system leaves a public, traceable signal through badge records. This snapshot does not score websites or decide whether any individual site is fully accessible; it only examines which types of non-government applicants appear in the voluntary private records.
In the 2026-07-03 analysis snapshot, the source file contained 6,707 badge records. 608 records used the agency code 0 and were treated as non-government applicants. The category and level analysis in this note covers only those 608 records.
Key figures
- Original badge records
- 6,707
- Non-government records
- 608
- about 9.1%
- A / AA / AAA
- 252 / 306 / 50
- Classification method
- 8 / 20
- 8 categories and 20 subcategories
Category distribution
The table covers only the 608 non-government badge records in this snapshot.
| Category | Records | Share | A | AA | AAA | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education institutions | 231 | 38.0% | 85 | 144 | 2 | Universities, technical colleges, private schools, kindergartens, and education services. |
| Financial services | 195 | 32.1% | 75 | 80 | 40 | Banking, securities, futures, investment trust, insurance, and financial accessibility service sites. |
| Foundations and associations | 89 | 14.6% | 38 | 51 | 0 | Private foundations, associations, and government-funded or delegated legal entities. |
| Leisure and cultural venues | 35 | 5.8% | 29 | 6 | 0 | Sports centers, venues, museums, cultural sites, exhibitions, and tourism/cultural parks. |
| General companies | 23 | 3.8% | 6 | 12 | 5 | Transport, energy, manufacturing, retail, consulting, technology, and telecom companies. |
| Healthcare and care services | 21 | 3.5% | 11 | 7 | 3 | Medical institutions, medical devices, care services, and social welfare service organizations. |
| Assistive device resource centers | 11 | 1.8% | 8 | 3 | 0 | Assistive device borrowing, repair, and resource services often tied to local-government service systems. |
| Personal sites and studios | 3 | 0.5% | 0 | 3 | 0 | Portfolio or studio websites. |
Subcategory detail
Subcategories reduce the risk of over-reading category averages.
| Subcategory | Category | Records | A | AA | AAA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Universities / technical colleges | Education institutions | 214 | 83 | 131 | 0 |
| Banking / securities / futures / investment trust | Financial services | 134 | 59 | 57 | 18 |
| Insurance / financial accessibility services | Financial services | 61 | 16 | 23 | 22 |
| Foundations / associations | Foundations and associations | 52 | 27 | 25 | 0 |
| Government-funded / delegated legal entities | Foundations and associations | 37 | 11 | 26 | 0 |
| Sports centers / venues | Leisure and cultural venues | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| Tourism / leisure / cultural parks | Leisure and cultural venues | 14 | 8 | 6 | 0 |
| Private elementary / secondary schools / kindergartens | Education institutions | 12 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
| Technology / IT companies | General companies | 11 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Assistive device resource centers | Assistive device resource centers | 11 | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Social welfare / disability service organizations | Healthcare and care services | 11 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Medical institutions | Healthcare and care services | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| EdTech / tutoring service companies | Education institutions | 5 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
| Museums / arts / exhibition organizations | Leisure and cultural venues | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| General companies: manufacturing / retail / consulting / brands | General companies | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| Personal sites / studios | Personal sites and studios | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Telecom companies | General companies | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Energy / utilities | General companies | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Medical device / healthcare service companies | Healthcare and care services | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Transport companies | General companies | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Observations
Education and finance dominate the private badge records
Education institutions account for 231 records and financial services for 195 records. Together they account for 426 of 608 records, or 70.1%. In this snapshot, private accessibility badge records are highly concentrated in a small number of applicant types.
This should not be read as evidence that other sectors do no accessibility work. It only shows which non-government applicant types more often left queryable badge records in the MODA public list.
AAA records are not evenly distributed, and scope may matter
There are 50 AAA records, 40 of them in financial services. General companies and healthcare/care services have smaller totals but relatively higher AAA shares. This looks more like a combined effect of site scope, page type, technical capacity, and service motivation than a simple sector ranking.
The interpretation should stay conservative: the public list provides badge levels and basic fields, but it cannot directly prove that one organization type provides a better real user experience.
Subcategories reveal differences hidden by category averages
Financial services show a clear internal split: insurance and financial accessibility service sites have 22 AAA records out of 61, while banking, securities, futures, and investment trust sites have 18 AAA records out of 134. Both are finance, but their site purposes and interaction complexity may differ.
This is where a Data Note can be more useful than a simple total count: a public source, when classified in a checkable way, can raise more specific institutional questions.
Method
- The source is the public download data from Taiwan’s Ministry of Digital Affairs accessibility web space service. The original analysis used the file obtained on 2026-07-03, named “無障礙標章數統計-11504.csv”.
- This note treats records with agency code 0 as non-government applicant records. Website names, applicant names, and business context were manually reviewed, then organized with AI assistance into 8 categories and 20 subcategories.
- The category fields are added by the analysis layer; they are not original MODA fields. The full classified CSV is available for checking or correction.
Limits
- This is a 2026-07-03 analysis snapshot, not the live count shown on Accesserty’s current Taiwan region summary page.
- The classification includes manual judgment and AI-assisted organization, so subjective or incorrect categories are possible.
- A badge level is not a guarantee of whole-site quality, user experience, or legal compliance.
- Organizations that do not appear in these private badge records may still have accessibility work that is not represented in this source.