Accessibility · WCAG 2.2 AA
An accessible site is a better site for everyone
Accessibility work gets sold on fear and delivered as a widget. Neither part is right. Done properly it is ordinary engineering discipline — real buttons, visible focus, sufficient contrast, labelled forms — that makes the site better for every visitor, measurably reduces the most common complaints, and happens to be the responsible thing to do.
- Standard
- WCAG 2.2, Level AA
- Testing
- Automated plus manual AT
- Overlays
- We do not install them
The problem
Most sites fail on the same handful of things
Accessibility problems are not exotic. Automated and manual audits across the web keep surfacing the same short list: insufficient colour contrast, images without meaningful alternative text, form inputs without labels, links whose text is 'click here', and interactive elements built from divs that a keyboard cannot reach.
None of those is hard to fix. They persist because nobody is checking, and because the usual response is to install an overlay widget that claims to fix them automatically — which addresses the sales anxiety rather than the site.
Quick things you can check yourself today
- Press Tab from the top of your homepage. Can you see where you are, on every step?
- Tab to your navigation menu. Does it open, and can you get back out?
- Open a modal with the keyboard. Does Escape close it, and does focus return?
- Is your light grey body text actually readable on white?
- Does every form field have a visible label, not just placeholder text?
- Do your videos have captions, and do your images have alt text that says something?
What is included
What we deliver
Audit
- Automated scanning across templates — which catches a useful minority of issues
- Manual keyboard-only traversal of every interactive flow
- Screen-reader testing with NVDA and VoiceOver on real pages
- Contrast measurement against the WCAG 2.2 AA ratios
- Zoom and reflow testing at 200% and 400%
- A findings report ordered by severity and user impact, not by scanner score
Remediation
- Semantic HTML first: real buttons, links, headings, lists and landmarks
- ARIA only where native HTML genuinely cannot do the job
- Visible, high-contrast focus indicators on every interactive element
- Accessible names for every control, including icon-only buttons
- Forms with persistent labels, clear errors and programmatic association
- Keyboard-operable menus, modals, carousels and tabs, with focus management
- Captions and transcripts specified for media; alt text written, not generated
Making it stick
- An accessibility statement describing your actual status, not a boast
- A documented feedback route so users can report barriers to a real person
- Automated checks in CI to catch regressions on every pull request
- A short checklist your content team can apply when publishing
- A re-test after remediation, with the findings report closed out item by item
Our position
Why we will not install an accessibility overlay
Overlay widgets — the ones that add a floating accessibility icon and promise automated compliance — are the most common thing we are asked for and the one thing we decline.
They cannot fix what they claim to fix
An overlay runs JavaScript over a page it did not build. It cannot know that an image of a chart conveys information, what a form field is for, or whether a heading structure reflects the document. The hardest and most consequential barriers are matters of meaning, and meaning is not something a script can infer reliably.
Disabled users have been clear about them
Overlay products are widely criticised by screen-reader users and by accessibility practitioners, and hundreds of professionals in the field have signed public statements opposing them. When the people a product claims to help say it gets in their way, that is the most relevant evidence available.
They do not reliably remove risk
Sites running overlay widgets have still been named in US accessibility claims. We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice, but as an engineering matter an overlay leaves the underlying markup unchanged — and the underlying markup is what an expert review examines.
They can make things worse
Overlays frequently conflict with assistive technology the user already has configured. A screen-reader user arriving with their own settings can find a second, unrequested layer intercepting their interactions.
What we do instead
Fix the markup. Real buttons, correct headings, labelled inputs, managed focus, sufficient contrast, keyboard-operable components. It takes longer than pasting a script tag, it costs more than a monthly widget subscription, and it is the only approach that actually changes the experience.
For reference
What the conformance levels actually mean
WCAG has three levels. Knowing which one you are aiming at — and why — is the first decision in any accessibility project.
| Level | What it covers | Our position |
|---|---|---|
| Level A | The most basic requirements. A site failing A is likely to be unusable for some people, not merely awkward | A floor, not a target. We do not scope projects to Level A |
| Level AA | Adds contrast minimums, text resizing, consistent navigation, visible focus, clearer error handling and more | This is what we build and remediate to. It is the level referenced by most public-sector requirements worldwide and the one most commonly cited in US settlement agreements |
| Level AAA | Stricter again: higher contrast, sign-language interpretation, extended audio description, plain-language requirements | WCAG itself notes it is not possible to satisfy AAA for all content. We adopt individual AAA criteria where they genuinely help your audience, rather than claiming the level |
| WCAG 2.2 versus 2.1 | 2.2 was published in October 2023, adding criteria for focus appearance, dragging alternatives, target size, consistent help and accessible authentication | We work to 2.2 AA. It is backwards compatible — meeting 2.2 means meeting 2.1 and 2.0 |
Our process
How remediation runs
Understand needs
Audit against WCAG 2.2 AA
Automated scanning for coverage, then the manual testing that finds what scanners cannot: focus order, keyboard traps, meaningful alt text, whether a screen reader announces anything useful.
You getPrioritised findings report, by user impact
Strategize
Sequence by impact and cost
Barriers that stop someone completing a task come before cosmetic criteria. Many issues are component-level, so one fix clears dozens of instances — we group them that way.
You getRemediation plan grouped by component
Create & build
Fix it in the code
Changes made in the templates and components themselves. Each is verified with the same manual methods that found it, not just re-scanned.
You getRemediated build, re-tested with AT
Optimize & grow
Publish, monitor, maintain
Accessibility statement published, feedback route live, automated checks in CI. New content and new features are where regressions come from, so the checks have to outlast the project.
You getStatement, CI checks, content checklist
Honest scoping
Who should do this work
Prioritise it if
- You serve the public, especially in healthcare, education, finance, government or retail
- You have received a complaint, a demand letter or an accessibility question in a procurement process
- You sell to public-sector or enterprise buyers who ask for conformance information
- You are already redesigning — building it in costs a fraction of retrofitting it
- You simply want the site to work for everyone who tries to use it
We are not the right call if
- You want a widget installed by Friday and a badge for the footer
- You want someone to certify your legal compliance — no vendor can do that, and we will not pretend to
- You are in active litigation and need an expert witness or legal strategy; you need a specialist lawyer, and we are happy to work alongside one
- The site is being replaced in two months — remediate the new one instead and save the money
One more thing. We can also run this as training for your team rather than as remediation, if you would rather build the capability in-house.
Questions
Before you ask us
The things people ask about ADA & WCAG Accessibility before they get in touch. If yours is not here, ask directly — you will get a straight answer rather than a brochure.
Ask a questionIs my small business legally required to have an accessible website?
We cannot answer that for your situation, and anyone who gives you a confident yes or no without knowing your business is overreaching. In the US, obligations can arise from the ADA, from Section 508 if you work with federal agencies, from state laws, and from contractual requirements in procurement. What we can tell you is that WCAG 2.2 Level AA is the standard most commonly referenced across all of those, which is why we build to it. For your actual obligations, ask a qualified attorney.
Do accessibility overlay widgets work?
Not for the problems that matter. They cannot determine what an image means, what a form field is for, or whether a page's structure makes sense, and they are widely criticised by the screen-reader users they claim to serve. Sites running them have still been named in claims. We fix the markup instead, which is slower and more expensive and is the only thing that genuinely changes the experience.
Will accessibility work make my site look worse?
No. Nearly all of it is invisible: semantic markup, labels, focus management, keyboard behaviour. The visible parts — adequate contrast, a clear focus indicator, text that survives being zoomed, touch targets big enough to hit — are things a careful designer wants anyway. Where there is a genuine tension we will show you options rather than quietly changing your brand.
How long does remediation take?
It depends on the size of the site and how it was built. A component-based site often needs far less work than it first appears, because one fixed component clears every instance of it. A page-builder site with hand-assembled markup on every page is the slow case. The audit gives you a scoped, costed plan before you commit to remediation.
Can you certify that we are compliant?
No, and nobody can. We can produce a conformance report stating what was tested, against which success criteria, with what result and on what date — which is the artefact procurement teams and legal teams actually ask for. 'Certified compliant' is a marketing phrase, not a status that exists.
What does an accessibility audit cost?
Audits are priced on the number of unique templates and user flows rather than page count, starting at $850. Remediation is quoted separately once the audit shows what is actually there, because quoting it beforehand would be a guess. Current ranges are on the pricing page.
Please note. Bizup LLC is a web design and development studio, not a law firm. Nothing on this page is legal advice. Accessibility conformance is a technical assessment against the WCAG standard; it is not a legal certification, and no agency — including this one — can guarantee that you will not receive a complaint or a demand letter. For advice about your specific legal obligations, talk to a qualified attorney.
Start with a real audit
An automated scan plus manual keyboard and screen-reader testing across your main templates, written up by severity. You will know what is actually wrong before you spend anything on fixing it.