01
People report barriers but the team cannot reproduce them
The issue needs to be translated into a clear task, affected users, technical cause, and fix.
All services
Service 02
Accessibility Testing & Improvement
Find the barriers that automated scores miss, understand who they affect, and give your team a practical route to improvement.
Discuss this work
What experience teaches us
Our perspective on Accessibility Testing & Improvement
A green automated score does not mean a person can finish the task. A menu may have labels and still trap keyboard focus. A video may have captions and still leave out the meaning carried in speech or sound. We test the journey, not only the code pattern.
When this service helps
The visible problem is rarely the whole problem.
02
Automated tools produce a long list without priorities
Teams need to know what blocks completion, what affects many pages, and what can be fixed first.
03
Accessibility arrives just before launch
Late discovery turns small design decisions into costly engineering and content repairs.
What the work can include
A clear process, with room to listen and change course.
01
Automated checks with human interpretation
Tools help us find patterns; a person decides whether the result is meaningful and what it misses.
02
Manual interaction testing
We review keyboard navigation, focus, structure, forms, errors, zoom, reflow, content, and multimedia.
03
Assistive-technology review
Where agreed, we examine important journeys with relevant screen-reader and interaction setups.
04
Barrier-led reporting
Findings explain the task, user impact, evidence, relevant criteria, priority, and a practical recommendation.
Possible deliverables
Agree what useful completion looks like.
The final scope depends on the problem, people, timeline, evidence, and budget. A proposal should state what is included and what is not.
- Agreed pages and user journeys
- Accessibility findings with evidence
- Priority and user-impact classification
- Applicable WCAG 2.2 references
- Practical remediation guidance
- Review meeting with product or delivery teams
Access commitment
Access changes how the work is planned.
Disabled people are not a checklist. Testing should make the consequences of a barrier understandable without turning someone’s experience into decoration. Where user testing is included, participation, consent, access, time, and payment must be planned properly.
Who this may suit
- Product and engineering teams
- Public-service teams
- Schools and learning platforms
- Communications teams
- Organisations preparing a redesign or procurement
Useful outcomes
- A shared understanding of the most serious barriers
- Recommendations teams can assign and act on
- Better accessibility decisions in future releases
- A documented baseline for follow-up review
Questions worth asking
Clear limits make better working relationships.
Is this an accessibility certification?
No. We assess the agreed scope against applicable criteria and user tasks. The report records what was tested, what was not tested, and the evidence found.
Do you use automated tools?
Yes, as one part of the work. Automated tools cannot judge the full experience, so they do not replace manual or user-centred review.
Can you help after the audit?
Yes. Remediation support can include design review, developer guidance, content changes, retesting, and help building accessibility into normal delivery.
Tell us what is happening now.
You do not need a finished brief. Explain the people, the task, where it breaks, and what needs to be different.
Related services