Website Accessibility (WCAG 2.2) Audit and Remediation

No one can certify ADA compliance — there is no such certificate, and any vendor claiming to issue one is telling you something the law does not support. What exists is WCAG conformance: the technical standard that the DOJ has adopted for public entities and that courts and settlement agreements consistently reference for everyone else. This service audits against WCAG 2.2 AA, fixes real barriers in your code, and documents both — which is the strongest technical position an organization can put itself in. What it means for your legal exposure is a question for your counsel, and we work alongside them gladly.

Talk to your lawyer first — the letter is a legal matter and the response strategy is theirs. In parallel, get the technical facts established: an audit tells you and your counsel what is actually broken, how serious it is, and what a credible fix timeline looks like, which is far better footing for a response than guesswork. When remediation starts, task-blocking barriers get fixed first and everything is documented — evidence of concrete, prioritized progress, which counsel can put to use. We supply the technical side of that record; we do not draft the legal response.

Target 2.2 AA — it is the current W3C standard and it carries the 2.1 AA criteria forward, so testing against it covers both (2.2 retires one 2.1 criterion, 4.1.1 Parsing, which modern browsers made obsolete). The DOJ Title II rule formally references 2.1 AA, so for public-sector clients the report records results against both versions and you can map straight to the rule. Meeting 2.2 today also means the next regulatory update is unlikely to catch you flat-footed.

Under the DOJ's ADA Title II rule, state and local government entities must bring web content and mobile apps to WCAG 2.1 AA by April 26, 2027 (entities serving 50,000 people or more) or April 26, 2028 (smaller entities and special district governments) — dates set by the DOJ's 2026 interim final rule, which extended the original deadlines by one year while stating it fully anticipates enforcing them. Those dates arrive faster than a procurement cycle plus an audit plus remediation. Private businesses have no fixed federal deadline — their pressure arrives as litigation instead, on no schedule at all.

Because it does not fix your code, and everyone who matters can tell. Overlays inject a script over a site whose underlying markup remains broken for the assistive technology that reads it directly. In 2025 the FTC ordered an overlay vendor to pay $1 million over misleading compliance claims, and sites running overlays continue to receive demand letters — some suits now cite the overlay itself as a barrier. We do not sell them. The work that holds up — to users, to experts, to the DOJ's own standard — is fixing the markup, and that is a development job.

The audit starts at $2,950, with the exact fixed quote depending on how many templates and user flows are in scope. Remediation is quoted separately from the audit backlog — deliberately, because until the audit exists, any remediation price is a guess. You see the prioritized findings, approve exactly what gets fixed, and get a fixed price for that scope in writing before work begins. You pay after you approve delivery.

Both, and the manual testing is the point. Automated scanners are genuinely useful for mapping repeating, systemic issues, but they catch only a fraction of the barriers real users hit — they cannot tell you whether a checkout can actually be completed by keyboard or whether a screen reader announces anything useful on your form errors. Our auditors test keyboard-only, with NVDA and VoiceOver, at 400% zoom, through your real user flows. If a vendor's "audit" is a scanner report with a logo on it, you have not had an audit.

That is precisely why remediation is part of this service. We are a development team: custom applications, ASP.NET and modern JavaScript stacks, WordPress and comparable CMS platforms, and Microsoft-stack properties including SharePoint-based sites. Where a barrier lives in a third-party theme or plugin we cannot modify, we say so and give you the evidence for a vendor escalation or a replacement decision — what we do not do is hand you a PDF of problems and wish you luck finding developers.

The conformance statement is the written record of what was tested, against which standard, with what results and known limitations — the honest artifact behind a public accessibility page. Publishing that page is worth doing: it tells users with disabilities you take them seriously, gives them a contact route that surfaces problems before complaints escalate, and demonstrates documented effort. We deliver both the statement and a page template; keeping them current as the site changes is covered in the maintenance guidance.

The technical core does. The EAA, which has applied since June 2025, points to accessibility requirements that reference the same WCAG criteria through the EN 301 549 standard, so a WCAG 2.2 AA audit and remediation does the heavy lifting for EU-facing e-commerce and services. The EAA's additional obligations — accessibility statements in specific formats, market-surveillance responses — have legal dimensions where your counsel leads and our audit artifacts support.

Only if accessibility survives your publishing process, which is what the handover targets: automated checks wired into your CI or release workflow to catch regressions, an authoring checklist so content editors stop reintroducing barriers, and a recommended re-audit cadence — with a re-audit after any redesign being the one non-negotiable. Ongoing monitoring as a managed service is not part of this engagement; if you want it, we will scope it honestly rather than bundle it invisibly.