Making a site usable by everyone is a legal obligation for a growing share of organisations. It is also, incidentally, what makes it readable by the generative engines — both rest on the same structure.
WCAG 2.2, level AA is what every regulator now points at. It is a list of testable criteria, not a philosophy: each one either passes or fails, and each failure has a location and a fix. Any national framework you may be handed — the French RGAA, the American Section 508, the European EN 301 549 — restates those same criteria and adds its own test method on top.
In the European Union, the European Accessibility Act has applied since 28 June 2025 to e-commerce, banking, transport, electronic communications and e-books, with an exemption for micro-enterprises — and it reaches non-EU companies selling into the Union. In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 applies to private bodies and the 2018 regulations to the public sector. We establish the technical findings; qualifying your own situation in law is for your legal adviser.
An accessibility statement giving the conformance level, the content that does not conform, and how to report a problem. Regulators check for its absence before they even look at the site — it is often where an inspection starts. A remediation roadmap is not required everywhere, but it is what turns a statement into something defensible rather than a form filled in once.
Automated scanners catch roughly a third of the failures: an image with no alternative, a field with no label, a broken heading hierarchy, a missing language attribute. Our free audit covers precisely that share, and it covers it well.
The other two thirds can only be measured by hand, and those are the ones that fail a site under inspection.
An image can carry an alt attribute perfectly filled in with its own file name. The tool sees an attribute; a human sees a useless alternative. The same gap applies to link text, frame titles and table summaries.
Getting through the site without a mouse: reaching every interactive element, seeing where the focus is, leaving a menu or a modal without getting trapped. It is the single most revealing test, and no automated tool replaces it.
Contrast is measured once the page has rendered, on hover and focus states, including where text sits over an image. Bespoke components — tabs, accordions, date pickers, sortable tables — each need checking with a screen reader, one at a time.
The conformance rate calculated criterion by criterion on a sample of pages representative of every template, with the exact location, the reason and the expected fix for each failure.
Every fix estimated in time and ranked by return against effort, distinguishing what is settled inside a template — therefore once for every page — from what needs the content itself reworking.
The accessibility statement written in the form your regime expects, plus the outline of a remediation roadmap, ready to be adopted.
We work in the templates rather than page by page. That is what makes conformance hold over time: a fixed component also covers the pages that do not exist yet.
This is not a sales argument bolted on afterwards, it is a direct consequence. A screen reader and a language model read the same thing: structure. A coherent heading hierarchy marks out the ideas for both. A described image becomes information instead of a hole. Explicit link text makes sense out of context, which is exactly the criterion for a quotable passage. A declared language attribute prevents misreading in both cases.
That is why our audit handles both subjects in the same pass, and why our page on GEO takes the same criteria from another angle.
pricingIn the European Union, the European Accessibility Act has applied since 28 June 2025 to e-commerce, banking, transport, electronic communications and e-books, with an exemption for micro-enterprises — and it reaches companies outside the Union that sell into it. Public bodies have been covered for longer, under EN 301 549. In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 applies to private organisations and the 2018 regulations to the public sector. Qualifying your own case is for your legal adviser; we establish the technical findings, not the legal analysis.
WCAG 2.2 level AA, which is the current version and the one European and British regulation now points at. If your contract or your framework still names 2.1 AA, the audit covers it: 2.2 is a superset, so a 2.2 AA site is 2.1 AA by construction. We say in the report which criteria are new in 2.2, so nothing gets flagged against you retroactively.
No, and that is the important point. Tools detect around a third of the failures: missing alternatives, absent labels, broken hierarchy. The other two thirds — whether an alternative is actually useful, the keyboard journey, reading order, the behaviour of dynamic components — need human testing. A report that is purely automated does not support an accessibility statement.
Entirely dependent on the starting gap and the number of templates. A well-built marketing site is brought up to standard in a few days; a business application with bespoke components takes several weeks. The audit puts a figure on that gap before any commitment — that is its first use.
Enforcement varies by country, but the pattern does not: complaints reach a regulator, the regulator asks for the accessibility statement, and its absence is established without anyone having to audit the site. Beyond the sanction, the practical cost is the one that arrives first — public buyers score accessibility, and large clients now put it in their supplier requirements. Sites get excluded from tenders for it before anyone gets fined for it.
This page describes a regulatory framework whose exact scope depends on your status and your activity. It is not legal advice : have your situation qualified by your own adviser before taking any decision.
Bidding for a public digital contract in Tunisia — where the notices are published, how to decide whether to bid, and why most submissions are rejected on form before anyone reads them. Accessibility is scored there ; the rest of the file is prepared well in advance.
Describe what you need. We turn an institutional requirement into a solution that is reliable, secure and built to last.