WCAG conformance audits
Criterion-by-criterion assessment against WCAG 2.2 AA, pairing automated scans for what machines can detect with expert manual review for the majority of criteria they can't.
Quality Engineering
Accessible is testable, and most sites fail
The procurement questionnaire asks for WCAG conformance evidence, and the deal waits on your answer. A scanner badge won't survive that review; what will is whether a screen-reader user can finish your checkout and keyboard navigation holds up end to end. We test accessibility the way conformance is actually judged: criterion by criterion, with assistive technology, on real task flows.
Engineering-led cybersecurity and quality engineering since 2020, delivered by 100+security & quality engineers on platforms we build and run ourselves.
Inaccessible products exclude users, fail procurement requirements that increasingly mandate WCAG conformance, and carry legal exposure in markets with accessibility law (ADA, EN 301 549, EAA). Retrofit is always costlier than building it in.
What we do
Assistive-technology testing
Task completion with screen readers (NVDA, VoiceOver), keyboard-only navigation, magnification, and voice control, exercised on real user flows end to end.
Usability validation
Task-based usability sessions: where users hesitate, backtrack, or abandon, with findings your designers can act on.
Remediation partnership
Prioritized fixes with code-level guidance, then retest and a conformance statement you can share.
How it’s delivered
01
Scope
Select flows and pages by user impact and conformance target.
02
Audit
Automated plus expert manual review; every finding evidenced.
03
Prioritize
Findings ranked by user impact and fix cost, mapped to WCAG criteria.
04
Retest
Verify fixes and issue an updated conformance summary.
Tools & standards
- Automated
- axe, Lighthouse, WAVE
- Assistive technology
- NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, TalkBack; keyboard-only protocols
- Standards
- WCAG 2.2 AA, EN 301 549, Section 508
What you receive
- WCAG 2.2 criterion-mapped audit report with evidence per finding
- Prioritized remediation plan with code-level guidance
- Retest verification and conformance summary
- Usability findings from real task flows
Evidence
How conformance is actually judged
Assessment combines automated checks with expert manual review and assistive-technology testing on real task flows, reported against the specific WCAG 2.2 success criteria your obligation names. The methodology is published.
How we deliver →Engagement
Ways to engage the same senior bench
Buy it as a scoped project, embed it in your team, or run it as a managed service. The engineers and the governance stay the same, whichever shape fits.
Scoped project
A defined piece of work with a fixed outcome (a test suite built, a release hardened, a backlog cleared), delivered by our team and handed over with documentation.
Embedded QE
Our engineers work inside your sprint teams, on your tools and cadence, owning quality alongside your developers rather than testing from the outside.
Managed QE service
We own the discipline as an ongoing service (coverage, execution, and reporting), scaling the bench up or down as your release pressure moves.
Who this is for
- Products selling into government, education, or enterprise procurement with conformance requirements
- Teams that ran a scanner, fixed the top ten, and know that isn't conformance
- Design-led companies that want usability evidence their teams can act on
Common questions
Is an automated scan enough for conformance?
Automated tools catch a minority of WCAG criteria. We combine them with expert manual review and assistive-technology testing (screen readers, keyboard-only) on real task flows, which is how conformance is judged.
Which standard do you test against?
WCAG 2.2 at the AA level by default, the bar most procurement, ADA, and EN 301 549 expectations map to. If your obligation is different, we scope to it and report against the specific success criteria.
Who actually does the work?
Senior engineers from our own team, and the ones who scope your engagement stay on it through delivery. Across the practice, 63% of our engineers hold industry certifications, spanning ISTQB, AWS, CISSP, CEH, and eCPPT.
In the assurance loop
Accessibility findings get the discipline security findings get. They are remediated, re-checked, and the evidence stays in the release record. See how the loop connects →
Answer the conformance question with evidence
Show us the flows your users depend on and the requirement you're facing. We scope an audit that stands up to the procurement review behind it.