RANKING OF WEB ACCESSIBILITY AND COOKIES (BANKS AND CASH BOX EDITION): GENERALIZED FAILURE OF BANKS

At least, that is the theory because in practice it is far from it.

Do web portals meet the minimum web accessibility requirements? How do you manage cookies? These are questions that we are going to answer with data and detailed analysis through our ranking.

Banking entities still have a very wide room for improvement, we already told you that the exams of the Royal Decree 1112/2018 and the European Directive 2009/136/EC come with generalized failures.

Ranking of Banks in web accessibility:

Opening a bank account, making a transfer or managing payments can be just a click away… or not. Have you considered what your web browsing would be like if you had a disability? That is why web accessibility is essential in a digitalized world.

This is the situation today. Attention! Because there is more than one surprise.

BBVA: although it is in the top positions of the ranking and has a score of 6.29, the level of adequacy is not valid.  The compliance status is partially compliant and the accessibility statement is missing essential information. The room for improvement is wide.

Sabadell: it occupies the last position in the ranking with the lowest score (3.25). The adequacy level is invalid and the compliance status is non-conforming. Furthermore, the accessibility declaration does not exist and has significant deficiencies that must be corrected as soon as possible. Everything to do.

Santander: is in the penultimate position with an invalid level of adequacy. The average score is 3.45 and the compliance situation is non-compliant. In this sense, the accessible declaration excludes information and is too brief. It contains errors in the approach.

Caixabank: the average score is 5.85, but the level of adequacy is invalid. Added to this is a situation of non-compliant compliance and an accessibility declaration that does not exist. You must correct the most basic errors so that your website is accessible.

Openbank: the level of adequacy is invalid and the score is 4.21, the third lowest in the entire ranking. On the other hand, the compliance situation is non-compliant and does not present the accessibility declaration. It is one of the banking entities with the most deficiencies.

ING: the second best average score with 6.71, but the level of adequacy is invalid. The accessibility statement is appreciated, although it should be more in-depth and offer more details; while the compliance situation is partially compliant.

Bankinter: like the rest, the level of adequacy is invalid. The compliance situation is non-conformity and its score is 5.26. On the contrary, the accessibility statement is correct. It has some basic aspects to improve.

Cajasur: the level of adequacy is invalid and has a score of 5.22. The compliance situation is non-conformity and errors have been detected in the accessibility declaration since important details are missing.

Unicaja Banco: it leads the ranking with a 6.87, but the level of adequacy is invalid. However, the compliance situation is partially compliant and the accessibility statement is correct.

Cajamar: the suitability level is invalid and the website score is 4.46. The compliance situation is non-compliant and must include the correctly completed accessibility declaration. It has a fairly wide room for improvement.

Note: The scores and data have been obtained through the analysis tool of the Web Accessibility Observatory, dependent on the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation.

Note: Compliance status is based on the number of error-free pages. There may be a high score because the same errors are repeated on most of the website’s pages.

Ranking of cookies used by banks: 

The user experience and usefulness of a website are not only measured by the level of accessibility, the management and cookie policy must also be taken into account. Do banks comply with cookie legislation? We could say yes in a general way, but there are many details to perfect and some important errors to correct.

BBVA: cookie management exists, but transparency must be improved. Some do not have the possibility of deleting them and, when the cookies are adjusted, a notice appears warning that it is a long process. However, it is quite simple and takes less than a minute to disable them.

On the other hand, the cookie policy is incomplete because it does not describe the exact cookies or their capacity.

Sabadell: cookie management is adequate, it is in the right direction. The cookie policy should be more detailed and is incomplete. You must inform about the exact cookies, their origin and their expiration so that they are correct and comply with the legal model.

Santander: cookie management must undergo a profound change. If you try to deactivate them, it does not block them, so the attempt is useless and the regulations are violated. The cookie policy is correct.

Caixabank: both the management and the cookie policy are adequate. The authorization to install them is correct and relevant information can also be found. Good work in this field.

Openbank: it needs a radical change in terms of cookies. It is at the bottom of the ranking and has no management or policy. Of the banks analyzed, it is the only one that should undergo a 180-degree turn in this regard.

ING: the management and cookie policy are adequate. The authorization to install them is correct and relevant information can also be found. It occupies fourth position and the dynamics are positive.

Bankinter: leads the cookie ranking because the management and policy are ideal. The authorization is in accordance with the required requirements and the information about cookies as well. Good job.

Cajasur: although cookie management exists, there are important errors in deactivation that must be corrected. The policy is correct. It is on the right path, but it has to improve some points.

Unicaja: cookie management exists and is adequate. The same thing happens with management. Challenge overcome.

Cajamar: cookie management exists and is adequate, but the policy does not exactly detail the cookies implemented. It would be necessary to incorporate this relevant information to comply with the regulations.