Web Accessibility Audits
& WCAG Compliance
Most websites aren't accessible. That's now a legal problem.
95.9% of home pages have detectable WCAG violations. The European Accessibility Act is in effect, and ADA-related web accessibility lawsuits against private businesses keep rising. We audit against WCAG 2.1 AA, fix what's broken, and monitor for regressions so your site stays compliant as it evolves.
Accessibility was a best practice.
Now it's a legal requirement.
The European Accessibility Act took effect in June 2025. It applies to any business selling products or services to EU customers, not just EU-based companies. ADA Title II requires state and local government websites to meet WCAG 2.1 AA. The compliance deadline was extended in April 2026 and now falls in April 2027 for larger entities, April 2028 for smaller ones. The DOJ treats websites as "places of public accommodation" under the ADA, and enforcement actions against private businesses have followed. ADA-related web accessibility lawsuits have more than doubled since 2018. The cost of defending a single lawsuit ranges from $10,000 to $100,000+, regardless of outcome. Proactive compliance costs less than one lawsuit.
Compliance aside, the business case is straightforward. 1.3 billion people globally live with some form of disability. In the US, that's 1 in 4 adults. Inaccessible sites exclude that audience entirely. Accessible sites see measurably more organic traffic because the things search engines reward (semantic HTML, heading structure, descriptive link text, alt text) are accessibility fundamentals. Clearer navigation, better contrast, and logical structure improve conversion for every user, not just those using assistive technology.
Already monitoring performance? See how accessibility fits into ongoing maintenanceFour principles. Real failures on real sites.
Visual Access
83.9% of home pages have insufficient color contrast. 53.1% have missing alt text on images. These are the most common violations and the most straightforward to fix, but they make content invisible to users with low vision or screen readers.
Every foreground/background color combination gets checked against AA thresholds (and AAA where practical). Alt text is reviewed for accuracy and context, not just presence.
Keyboard and Interaction
If a site only works with a mouse, it doesn't work for a significant portion of users: people using keyboards, switch devices, voice control, and screen readers. This is the area where automated tools are weakest and manual testing matters most.
Every interactive element gets tested for keyboard access: tab order, visible focus indicators, touch target sizes, and no keyboard traps.
Structure and Clarity
Heading hierarchy that jumps from h1 to h4. Form inputs without labels. Error messages that don't explain what went wrong. These issues hurt usability for everyone, but they make a site genuinely unusable for people who rely on assistive technology to parse page structure.
Audits cover heading order, form labeling, error handling, and navigation consistency. Well-structured pages are easier for search engines to index and essential for screen reader users to navigate.
Markup and Compatibility
Semantic HTML, correct ARIA usage, and screen reader
compatibility are the foundation. Sites built on
<div> soup
with decorative ARIA attributes often test worse than sites
with no ARIA at all. Proper semantics do most of the heavy
lifting.
Markup is validated against WCAG success criteria and tested with real assistive technology (NVDA, VoiceOver) to verify content is announced correctly and in logical order.
From scan to compliant.
Automated scan.
Automated tools catch roughly 30% of WCAG violations: contrast ratios, missing alt text, broken ARIA attributes, duplicate IDs, missing form labels. This surfaces the obvious issues and produces a starting inventory.
Manual audit.
The other 70%. Keyboard navigation paths, screen reader behavior, logical reading order, focus management on dynamic elements. Most sites that "pass" automated scans fail here, because nobody tested with actual assistive technology.
Prioritized fix list.
Issues ranked by severity and user impact, not alphabetical WCAG criteria. Critical barriers first (keyboard traps, inaccessible login forms), then high-impact violations, then incremental improvements.
Fix and verify.
Each issue gets fixed and validated against the relevant WCAG success criterion. Automated checks confirm the technical fix. Manual testing confirms the user experience.
Design system integration.
Accessibility built into the component library and color system. Contrast ratios checked across every combination. Focus styles, touch targets, and ARIA patterns defined at the component level so future development doesn't reintroduce violations.
Ongoing monitoring.
Content changes, new features, and dependency updates can all reintroduce violations. Recurring audits catch regressions before they accumulate.
What We've Fixed
WCAG compliance for an operations platform
An operations platform had been built without accessibility as a requirement. A compliance review flagged over 200 WCAG violations: unlabeled form inputs, missing landmark roles, color contrast failures across the entire UI, no keyboard navigation support. Prioritized by severity. Critical violations fixed first, then systematic work through AA compliance.
Outcome
Full WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. Accessibility checks integrated into the development workflow so violations get caught before they ship.
WCAG contrast ratio matrix tool
A developer tool that generates a full contrast ratio matrix for any color palette, testing every foreground/background combination against AA and AAA thresholds. Used by other developers to audit design systems before implementation.
Outcome
An entire palette audited in seconds instead of checking individual pairs manually.
Dealing with accessibility issues on an existing site?
Let's talkMost sites don't need a rebuild.
Missing alt text, contrast failures, form labels, heading structure: these are HTML attribute changes, CSS updates, and content adjustments. A site built with reasonable markup and a standard framework usually has a clear path to compliance.
The calculus changes when the front-end is built entirely
without semantic structure. If the markup is nested
<div>
elements with click handlers instead of buttons,
<span>
tags instead of headings, and no landmark roles anywhere,
patching individual violations becomes more expensive than
rebuilding the affected components properly.
For most sites, fixing in place takes weeks. A full component rebuild takes months. The assessment covers the codebase first, then the recommendation goes with whichever approach reaches compliance faster and costs less to maintain long-term.
AA vs. AAA
AA is the right compliance target. It covers the violations that affect the most users and aligns with legal requirements. AAA adds stricter thresholds (higher contrast ratios, more detailed text alternatives, stricter timing controls) that can conflict with design requirements. AAA gets applied where it fits naturally and doesn't get forced where it creates tradeoffs that hurt usability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What WCAG level should we target?
AA. It's the accepted standard for legal compliance and covers the issues that affect the most users. AAA gets applied where it doesn't compromise design or functionality, but AA is the baseline.
Can you fix an existing site without a full rebuild?
Most sites, yes. The majority of violations are fixable with HTML changes, CSS updates, and content adjustments. The codebase gets assessed first, and the work is scoped based on what's there. If specific components need rebuilding, that gets scoped separately.
How long does an accessibility audit take?
It depends on size and complexity. A 10-page marketing site is a different scope than a 200-screen SaaS platform. Expect one to two weeks for the audit, with fix timelines scoped separately based on findings.
Do we need to worry about the EAA if we're US-based?
If you sell products or services to customers in the EU, yes. The European Accessibility Act applies to businesses operating in the EU market, regardless of where they're headquartered.
What's the difference between automated and manual testing?
Automated tools catch about 30% of WCAG violations: missing alt text, contrast failures, broken ARIA attributes. The remaining 70% requires human testing with real assistive technology. A passing automated scan does not mean a site is accessible.
Do accessibility overlay widgets count as WCAG compliance?
No. Overlay widgets try to patch accessibility at runtime with JavaScript, but they don't fix the source code, miss the roughly 70% of WCAG issues that require human judgment, and have been rejected by accessibility professionals and federal enforcement (the FTC fined accessiBe $1 million in 2025 over deceptive compliance claims).
Why accessibility overlays don't countWill accessibility changes break our design?
Rarely. Most fixes are invisible: semantic HTML changes, ARIA attributes, focus management. Where visual changes are needed (contrast adjustments, larger touch targets), they typically improve the design for everyone.
How much does an accessibility audit cost?
It depends on scope. A marketing site audit is a different project than full compliance for a SaaS platform. You get a clear estimate before work starts.
Not sure where your site stands?
Send us a URL. We run a baseline accessibility scan and tell you what needs attention.
Get a free accessibility check