Find the barriers. Fix the systems behind them.
An accessibility audit should do more than produce a list of failures. It should show which barriers matter most, where they repeat, who can fix them, and how to keep them from returning.
We help higher education, nonprofit, and public-sector teams assess and remediate websites and documents, build accessibility into design and development, and strengthen the workflows, governance, and team practices behind ongoing publishing.
Accessibility from audit through prevention.
-
Accessibility audits & prioritization
Scoped reviews of templates, components, representative pages, content, and key user flows using automated tools and defined manual checks. Findings are organized by user impact, recurrence, and remediation ownership.
-
Website remediation
Corrections to CMS templates, components, markup, navigation, forms, interactions, visual presentation, and content, with recurring system-level barriers addressed before isolated page issues.
-
Accessible design & development
New features, redesigns, and component systems built with semantic structure, keyboard operation, visible focus, contrast, reflow, meaningful alternatives, and native HTML before ARIA.
-
Documents & content workflows
Assessment and remediation guidance for web content and documents, including when HTML is the more accessible format and how teams can catch common barriers before publication.
-
Monitoring, governance & reporting
Audit findings, reported barriers, and monitoring data translated into clear ownership, review checkpoints, issue tracking, and practical standards for decentralized publishing teams.
-
Training & team guidance
Role-specific documentation and working sessions for editors, designers, developers, and project leads using the platforms and workflows they already have.
What turns findings into lasting improvement.
Useful accessibility work connects evidence, ownership, remediation, and prevention instead of treating every failure as an isolated page edit.
-
Address recurring barriers first
Template and component problems affect many pages, so fixing the shared source usually reduces more risk than correcting isolated instances first.
-
Assign remediation to the right role
Editors, designers, developers, document owners, and vendors need clear responsibility for the issues they can actually resolve.
-
Verify the fix and change the workflow
Retesting confirms the barrier is removed, while standards, documentation, and review checkpoints help prevent the same issue from returning.
Testing starts with a defined scope
Accessibility findings are only meaningful when the scope and methods are clear. Before work begins, we document the pages, components, standards, browsers, viewports, automated tools, manual checks, and assistive-technology combinations included in the engagement.
Automated testing is one part of the evaluation, not proof of conformance. Findings distinguish recurring template and component barriers from page-level content issues, with priorities based on user impact, recurrence, and the team responsible for remediation.
Standards are a baseline, not a maintenance plan
We target WCAG 2.2 Level AA in our design and development work. Organizations may also need to meet legal, procurement, or policy requirements that name a different technical standard, version, or deadline. We can help translate a defined requirement into a practical implementation plan, but we do not provide legal advice.
Long-term accessibility depends on routine decisions: which components editors can use, how documents are published, how new features are reviewed, how reported barriers are tracked, and who owns the next step.
Turn accessibility findings into practical action.
Tell us what has been reviewed, what needs remediation, or where your team needs a clearer plan. We can help define the scope, prioritize barriers, remediate issues, and strengthen the workflows that keep them from returning.
Discuss accessibility needs