What an engagement looks like
Our client work is confidential, so we do not publish names, logos or testimonials. What follows are illustrative examples of how engagements are typically scoped and delivered — written to show the shape of the work, not to describe any specific customer.
Read these as templates, not case studies
Every scenario below is constructed for illustration. No figures on this page describe a real named engagement. If you want to see genuine anonymised output, ask us on a call and we will walk you through a redacted report.
Example A — Mid-size e-commerce retailer
Situation. A consumer retailer selling across three EU markets, roughly 6,000 SKUs built from four product templates. An enterprise partner sent an accessibility questionnaire they could not answer.
Scope. Eleven templates plus two end-to-end journeys: guest checkout and registered checkout including the confirmation email.
Shape of findings. In an estate like this, findings usually cluster in a handful of shared components rather than spreading evenly. A custom select component, a modal that does not return focus, and an error-summary pattern that announces nothing typically account for the majority of blocker and serious findings across every template.
Outcome. A prioritised plan where the top three component fixes close most of the register, and a written conformance position the team can attach to the partner questionnaire.
Example B — Regional transport operator
Situation. Passenger transport is named explicitly in Annex I of the EAA, and ticketing plus real-time travel information are in scope. The operator needed a documented position rather than a bug list.
Scope. Full EAA programme: scope determination, WCAG 2.2 AA audit of the booking flow and journey planner, EN 301 549 clause-by-clause assessment, and the accessibility statement.
Shape of findings. Journey planners concentrate risk in two places: interactive maps, which are frequently unusable without a pointer and need a text-based equivalent rather than a patch; and session timeouts in booking flows, which fail 2.2.1 and disproportionately affect the users the directive exists to protect.
Outcome. A clause-by-clause conformance table, a documented disproportionate burden assessment for one legacy component with a replacement date, and a published statement that is accurate.
Example C — SaaS platform with a consumer tier
Situation. A product sold mainly B2B, with a self-serve consumer plan bought by card. The team assumed they were out of scope.
Scope. Scope determination first, then an audit limited to the consumer-facing surface: marketing site, sign-up, billing and the core application views a consumer-tier user can reach.
Shape of findings. The determination is the deliverable that matters here. The consumer checkout brings that service into scope even though the enterprise product stays outside, and writing down the boundary — with reasoning — is what stops the question being reopened every quarter.
Outcome. A one-page scope determination, a focused audit that costs a fraction of auditing the whole platform, and a clear internal rule about which surfaces future work must meet.
What these have in common
- Scope is decided before price. Every engagement starts with what is genuinely in scope, which is often smaller than the client feared.
- Findings are grouped by root cause. Component-level fixes close many findings at once; that grouping is most of the value.
- The written position is the durable artefact. Bugs get fixed and forgotten. The determination, the assessment and the statement are what you show someone in two years.
Which of these is closest to you?
Tell us in a sentence and we will tell you what scope and price would look like.