Do you guarantee ADA compliance?

No, and treat any vendor who does with suspicion. Whether a site meets a legal obligation is decided by lawyers and courts, not by an agency, a plugin or a scan report. What we commit to is the work and the evidence: building against WCAG 2.1 AA, the technical baseline Section 508 and EN 301 549 both point at, documenting which criteria were checked and how, scanning every staging build, and testing by keyboard and screen reader by hand. A promise of immunity is a sales claim, not a technical one.

Could an accessibility overlay or widget do this instead?

We do not install them, and we would advise against it. An overlay is a script running on top of markup it did not create, guessing at intent after the fact. If a heading level is wrong, the overlay cannot know the right one. If a control is a div pretending to be a button, it cannot know what activating it should announce. And people who rely on assistive technology already have it configured; a second injected layer tends to interfere. The fix belongs in the markup.

Which tools do you use, and why those?

Three, for three different jobs, each with a limit worth naming. axe DevTools: free browser tooling used during development, so problems are caught by whoever introduced them. It depends on developers running it. Lighthouse: a consistent score to track across builds. It samples a set of rules, and a score is not a compliance state. Accessibility Checker Pro: recurring site-wide scans with readable reports. It produces false positives that need expert review before they become tickets. Enterprise crawlers like Siteimprove add dashboards and SLA tracking, which suits very large estates. We run Accessibility Checker on this site too, so we read the reports we ask clients to read.

What happens once our editors start publishing?

This is where most accessible launches quietly stop being accessible. The build was compliant, then two years of content went in on top of it. Two things reduce that. The guardrails live in the block system rather than a style guide, so an editor picking a component inherits the correct semantics and focus handling. And the handover checklist covers what stays human: meaningful alt text, heading levels in order, and link text that makes sense read out of context.

How does accessibility overlap with SEO?

They read the same structure. Heading hierarchy, descriptive link text, alt attributes, landmark regions and programmatic labels are how a screen reader understands a page, and also how a crawler understands it. Fix them once and both benefit. The overlap is partial. Contrast ratios, focus visibility and keyboard traps matter enormously to users and not at all to a crawler, so treating accessibility as an SEO tactic gets you the cheap half.

How will we know it is working?

You should be able to check most of this without us: Zero errors from the automated scanner on key templates. No contrast failures in the design system. Every interactive component operable by keyboard, with a visible focus state. Forms that announce their errors rather than only coloring them. A documented result for the manual and screen-reader passes. An open-issues list. That last item is the honest signal. Any site of real size has open accessibility issues. What separates a maintained platform from a compliant-looking one is whether someone can tell you what they are.

Accessibility

Enterprise WordPress accessibility, built into the blocks your team publishes with

WCAG 2.1 AA is a design, engineering and QA discipline, not a plugin you switch on. We build semantic, keyboard-operable components, scan every staging build, and test by hand what a scanner cannot see.

Home
Capabilities
Accessibility

What we build in

The accessibility decisions that are cheaper to make early than to retrofit

Most accessibility debt on an enterprise WordPress site is structural: it comes from components, not content. Fixing it after launch means touching every page that uses them.

A written standard, agreed before the build

WCAG 2.1 AA named as the target in the acceptance criteria for each component, or higher where you need it. Left implicit, it becomes an argument about whether something counts as a defect, held after the component is already in production.

Contrast and hierarchy validated in design

Color pairings checked against WCAG contrast ratios in Figma with the WebAIM Contrast Checker, while the design is still editable. Heading hierarchy, landmarks and tab order documented before anything gets built.

Semantic HTML in every block

Headings that step one level at a time, real button and link elements instead of clickable divs, landmark regions a screen reader can move between, and ARIA used only where native semantics fall short.

Keyboard behavior specified per component

Menus, modals, sliders and accordions ship with a defined focus order, a visible focus state and a working escape path, specified during design rather than discovered in QA, when changing it means a rebuild.

Forms that explain themselves

Every field carries a programmatic label, help text is associated with aria-describedby, and validation errors are announced to assistive technology instead of being communicated only by turning a border red.

How it runs

Accessibility is checked at four points in delivery

Each stage catches a class of problem the next one can no longer fix cheaply.

1

Design

Contrast ratios validated, heading hierarchy and landmarks agreed, and keyboard behavior for menus, modals and sliders written down as a requirement.

2

Development

Semantic markup and focus management applied block by block against our internal accessibility guideline, with interactive elements exposing state programmatically.

3

QA

axe DevTools and Lighthouse on staging, a keyboard-only pass across key pages, Accessibility Checker Pro scans, and notes against every finding.

4

Go-live and after

A report covering what was resolved and what stays open, a checklist for your editors, and a review once real users have exercised the site.

What we will and will not claim

An automated scan proves less than most vendors imply

Automated tooling reports rule violations, and rules are only part of WCAG. That split is the difference between a site that passes a scan and a site people can use.

What a scanner catches

Machine-checkable failures: missing alt attributes, contrast below threshold, unlabeled form controls, broken heading order, duplicate landmark roles. Worth fixing on every build, and this is the layer we automate.

What it cannot catch

Whether the alt text describes the image. Whether focus order follows the visual order. Whether an ARIA label says what the control does. Whether an error message says how to fix the problem. All four pass a scan and fail a person.

What we do about the gap

Keyboard-only navigation and baseline screen-reader passes on the flows that matter, plus a handover separating what was verified automatically from what was verified by hand, and what is still open.

What enterprise teams ask us about WordPress accessibility

Worth reading even if you never hire us.

Related insights

Keep reading on accessibility and compliance

Why accessibility matters at enterprise scale, and where it sits inside a wider compliance program.

A person sits at a conference table in a modern office, reviewing documents. A video call screen behind shows two people with the text Web Accessibility Goals. Whiteboard with sticky notes is visible on the wall.

Feb 22, 2026

WordPress

Request a WCAG 2.1 AA review of your site

We will scan your key templates, run a keyboard and screen-reader pass over the flows that matter, and send you the findings with the manual checks listed separately from the automated ones.

Request an accessibility review Talk to an accessibility specialist