Digital Inclusion Standard content checklist
This is a one-page Digital Inclusion Standard content checklist for Australian government content teams. Work through one service at a time. Find the content decision inside each criterion, and record who made the call.
The Digital Inclusion Standard has applied to new public-facing and staff-facing services since 1 January 2025. It has applied to all existing public-facing services since 1 January 2026. If your agency runs a live public service, the work is due now.
The Standard is multidisciplinary, and that is why the content decisions inside it go unmade. A standard that belongs to everybody gets filed as an accessibility job, routed to developers, and stalls. Every one of the 5 criteria holds at least one decision only a content team can make.
[Uploader: both links in the next paragraph are placeholders. Point "the explainer" at the published Digital Inclusion Standard explainer article and "retrofitting existing services" at the published retrofitting guide. Neither is live yet, so do not publish this page until both URLs exist.]
For what the Standard is, which services it covers and what each criterion asks, read the explainer. If you have inherited an existing estate, read the guide to retrofitting existing services.
The Standard does not name a sign-off role. No delegate. No Senior Executive Service approver. No accountable officer anywhere in it. The sign-off line here is a Content Co recommendation. A decision nobody signed is a decision nobody made, but do not tell an auditor the Standard asks for it.
Get the template
Use it 2 ways. Download the branded version to run against your services, or open the checklist in the accordion below and copy it into your own document.
Digital Inclusion Standard content checklist
Run this checklist against one service at a time. Fill in every field in [square brackets] and tick each item. The Standard does not require a sign-off. Recording one is our recommendation: a decision nobody signed is a decision nobody made.
Service being assessed: [service name]
Content owner: [name, role]
Date assessed: [date]
-
Criterion 1 asks agencies to consider diverse user needs from the outset. It asks them to co-design the service and its supporting material. It also names eight cohorts with specific requirements:
people with disability
people who are blind or have low vision
people who are Deaf or hard of hearing
First Nations Australians
people affected by family and domestic violence
neurodivergent people
culturally and linguistically diverse communities
people with low digital ability
Question: Does the content meet the needs of the cohorts who rely on this service? Were any of them involved in shaping it?
What good looks like:
Content is written to a reading level the audience can use.
The core task is available in the languages your users speak.
Support content names where to get help offline for people who cannot finish online.
Guides and tutorials were co-designed with users, not written at them.
[ ] Name the cohorts this service must serve, drawing on the Standard's eight: [cohorts]
[ ] Set the reading level target and confirm the content meets it: [e.g. year 7]
[ ] Decide which content is translated and into which languages: [languages]
[ ] Confirm the support and contact content covers people who cannot complete the task online: [where it sits]
[ ] Record how users were involved in shaping the content, or note that they were not: [method or gap]
Decision recorded by: [content lead] Noted by: [service owner]
-
Criterion 2 asks agencies to communicate the benefits of the digital channel. It also asks them to understand what motivates their audience, and to make the service easy to use.
Question: Does the content make the benefit of the digital service clear? Is that benefit based on what your audience wants, or on what the agency wants?
What good looks like:
A plain statement of what the service does and what the user gets from doing it online.
Evidence of what motivates this audience, not an assumption.
No unexplained jargon, form numbers, or internal process names.
[ ] Write the one-line benefit statement for this service: [statement]
[ ] Record what you know about this audience's motivations and where that came from: [evidence]
[ ] Note the proportion of your target audience currently using the digital channel, as a baseline: [figure]
[ ] List the guidance content you provide and where it sits: [guidance]
Decision recorded by: [content lead] Noted by: [service owner]
-
Criterion 3 asks agencies to establish and maintain a safe digital environment. It also asks them to counter scams and misinformation, and to provide transparency and feedback loops. The Standard points to Safety by Design principles, the National Anti-Scams Centre and ACMA.
Question: Does the content help users avoid scams and misinformation? Does it explain plainly how their information is used, and how to report a problem?
What good looks like:
Clear content on how to tell a genuine message from a scam for this service.
Transparency and privacy content in plain language and current.
A visible, working feedback and report path, with wording that points to it.
Plain content on how a user updates or deletes their data.
[ ] Write the scam-awareness content for this service: [content]
[ ] Confirm the transparency and privacy content is plain language and current: [status]
[ ] Name the feedback and report channels and the wording that signposts them: [channels]
[ ] Confirm users can find out how to update or delete their data: [where it sits]
[ ] Note which safety items belong to security, moderation or incident response so they are routed correctly: [items, owner]
Decision recorded by: [content lead] Noted by: [service owner]
-
Criterion 4 asks agencies to make the service accessible. It also names three instruments to comply with. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the latest version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and the Australian Government Style Manual. The latest version is currently WCAG 2.2. Level AA is the whole-of-government baseline, set by the Australian Government Architecture. Accessibility spans content, design and code. This block covers only the content decisions.
Question: Does the content meet the parts of WCAG that content owns? Meaningful headings, descriptive link text, alt text, captions and transcripts, and plain language.
What good looks like:
Headings describe the section, not the brand or campaign.
Link text makes sense out of context, not "click here" or "read more".
Every informative image has alt text; decorative images are marked as such.
Video has captions and a transcript; audio has a transcript.
[ ] Confirm heading structure, link text, alt text, and captions or transcripts for this service: [status]
[ ] Confirm the reading level matches the audience: [level]
[ ] Confirm the content meets the Style Manual, which this criterion names directly: [status]
[ ] List content that must be fixed, and by when: [items, dates]
[ ] Note which accessibility items belong to design, engineering or procurement so they are routed correctly: [items, owner]
Decision recorded by: [content lead] Noted by: [service owner]
-
Criterion 5 asks agencies to provide flexibility and choice in how users engage with the service. It also asks for seamless experiences across service delivery channels. Adaptable interfaces, themes and font controls sit in the suggested activities, not the requirements. The requirement is about channels.
Question: A user starts online, rings the contact centre, then walks into a shopfront. Do they get the same answer?
What good looks like:
The core information is identical in every channel, in substance if not in wording.
Someone is named as responsible for keeping the channels in sync.
The content says what the non-digital options are, and how to switch to them.
[ ] Name the channels this service uses (web, app, phone, in person, paper): [channels]
[ ] Confirm the core information is consistent across all of them, and name who keeps them in sync: [owner]
[ ] Confirm the content names the alternative channels and how to use them: [where it sits]
[ ] Route the interface items (responsive layout, themes, font size, contrast controls) to design or engineering: [owner]
Decision recorded by: [content lead] Noted by: [service owner]
Where to check the source
Digital Inclusion Standard and how to meet it on digital.gov.au
The government's own criterion checklist for existing services
What you have to show
You show evidence through the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) and its data collection. That sits under the Investment Oversight Framework. Reporting starts above 50,000 end-to-end transactions or page visits a year.
Exemptions exist. The DTA grants them at criterion level, not across the whole policy. No penalty regime applies. The DTA says it will help agencies close gaps in the first instance.
What good looks like
You have a completed checklist for every public-facing service.
It names the cohorts, the reading level and the languages.
It names the protections and the person who keeps the channels in sync.
It names the content accessibility fixes, with dates against them.
When procurement, audit or risk asks how the service meets the Standard, the evidence is on one page.
Pick your highest-traffic service and run it against that one first. You will know inside an hour whether your team made the content decisions or only assumed them.
Photo by Milad Fakurian on Unsplash.
Did this land?
I write these to be used, not just read. Tell me if this wouldn't work in your organisation, and why.