Evidence
What this is built on, including the parts that argue against us.
One-sided citation reads as marketing. Everything here is a third-party source you can open and check, and some of it cuts the other way.
Read this first
RISEA is new. There are no results to show you, because there are no completed implementations to draw results from. Anybody presenting outcome statistics for a standard launched this year would be making them up.
So this page does the only honest thing available. It sets out the published sources the work is built on, and links them, so you can check whether they say what we claim.
Sources that complicate our position
These are here deliberately. A buyer should see them.
- Accreditation means something specific, and RISEA does not have it. UKAS is the sole national accreditation body, appointed by government. A certification scheme without UKAS behind it is not accredited, whatever it calls itself. This is why the only phrasing used here is “certified to the RISEA Canon Standard”. UKAS — frequently asked questions
- Design quality is not what convinces a professional buyer. Sillence et al. found that design appeal predicts rejection, while information credibility and personalisation predict selection. A good-looking site only buys the right to be read. It is a reason to publish evidence, not to publish a nicer homepage. Sillence et al., Social Science & Medicine, 2007
- W3C COGA guidance is informative, not normative. The cognitive accessibility patterns this site follows are advisory. Following them is a considered position, not compliance with a requirement, and it should not be presented as the latter. Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities
- Public sector accessibility regulations do not bind a private supplier. The 2018 regulations apply to public sector bodies' own websites, not to ours. Our accessibility duty comes from section 29 of the Equality Act instead, which is a different and less prescriptive obligation. We publish a statement in the government format anyway, but not because we are required to. Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018
Accessibility and plain language
- The standard this site is built to. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2
- Reading level is success criterion 3.1.5 and it is AAA only. This is the single most important accessibility fact for this audience: a site can pass AA completely and still be unusable by somebody at CEFR A1. Understanding SC 3.1.5 Reading Level
- Language of Parts is AA, and the bilingual model depends on it. An English phrase inside translated content must be marked as English or a screen reader will pronounce it with the wrong phonetics. Understanding SC 3.1.2 Language of Parts
- The plain language standard the copy is written against. ISO 24495-1:2023
- A public body stays legally responsible for accessibility even when it has outsourced. GOV.UK — accessibility requirements for public sector websites and apps
- The service-provision duty that does apply to RISEA. Equality Act 2010 s.29
Procurement
- Insurance may not be required before contract award. Procurement Act 2023 s.22
- Below-threshold advertising duties begin at £30,000. Procurement Act 2023 s.87
- Education and training fall under the light touch regime. Welsh Government — guidance on light touch contracts
- Supplies and services below £30,000 need value for money consideration only. Rhondda Cynon Taf — selling to the council
- The definition of delivery subcontracting, and the exclusion for third parties providing services. DfE subcontracting funding rules for post-16 education and training
- Social value carries a minimum 10% weighting and requires measurable commitments. PPN 002 — Social Value Model
- The Welsh Code RISEA has not signed. Code of Practice on Ethical Employment in Supply Chains
Data protection
- The eight terms a processor contract must contain, which the data processing agreement is drafted against. ICO — what needs to be included in the contract
What is deliberately not on this page
No effectiveness claims. No learner outcome figures. No comparison against other providers. No market size statistics. Not because they would be unflattering, but because RISEA has not generated them and citing somebody else's numbers as though they were evidence for this product would be dishonest.
The material itself is the evidence available today, and it is free to read in full.