Accessibility audit
A complete picture of where your digital service fails WCAG 2.2 level AA, which failures actually block users, and what each fix involves — delivered in ten working days.
Included
- Automated scan of every in-scope template
- Manual keyboard testing of all interactive components
- Screen reader testing with NVDA and VoiceOver
- Zoom and reflow checks at 400% and 320px
- Contrast measurement for text and UI components
- Issue register with screenshots and suggested fixes
- Prioritised remediation plan
- 90-minute developer walkthrough, recorded
- 30 days of email follow-up
Not included
So there are no surprises on the invoice:
- Writing the code fixes (we can quote separately)
- Legal advice on your national implementing law
- Ongoing monitoring or subscription
- Retesting after remediation (quoted separately, see pricing)
Typical duration: 10 working days from kick-off. Indicative price from €2,400 excluding VAT — every engagement is quoted individually after a scope call.
What we test against
The reference standard is WCAG 2.2 level AA, which is what both the European Accessibility Act and EN 301 549 rest on in practice. Where your service falls under EN 301 549 specifically, we also cover the additional clauses that go beyond WCAG — things like biometrics, real-time text and the accessibility of support documentation.
How scope is defined
We scope by page template and user journey, not by URL. A catalogue with 4,000 products built from one product template is one template. A typical first audit covers 8 to 15 templates plus two or three end-to-end journeys — for a retailer, that is usually browse, add to basket, and checkout including payment and confirmation email.
Journeys matter more than pages. A product page that scores well is worthless if the checkout that follows it cannot be completed with a keyboard, so we always test the transaction end to end rather than sampling pages in isolation.
Severity ratings
Every finding gets one of four ratings, and the rating drives the remediation order:
| Rating | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Blocker | A user with this disability cannot complete the task at all | Checkout submit button unreachable by keyboard |
| Serious | Task is completable but with significant difficulty or risk of error | Form errors announced only by colour change |
| Moderate | Noticeable friction; workaround exists | Focus indicator below the 3:1 contrast threshold |
| Minor | Standards failure with limited practical impact | Redundant alternative text on a decorative image |
What the report looks like
Each finding is a single entry containing: the success criterion it fails, the severity, the affected templates, a screenshot with the element highlighted, a plain description of who it affects and how, the failing markup, and a concrete suggested fix. Engineers can pick up an entry and act on it without needing to have been on the walkthrough call.
The executive summary at the front is deliberately one page, written for people who will never open the register — typically a product director or a general counsel who needs to know the conformance position and the size of the gap.
After the audit
Most teams clear their blockers and serious findings within one or two sprints. When you are ready, a remediation retest re-runs the exact baseline from your original audit and issues an updated conformance position, which is what you need before publishing an accessibility statement.
Get a fixed-price quote
Send us the URL and a sentence about your deadline. We reply within one business day.