EAA accessibility remediation

Make the site work for the customers it turns away.Keep the evidence that it does.

I test your live site against WCAG 2.1 AA and name the issues I find. I fix each one in the templates and components, then retest.

Built for: A business that sells to consumers in the EU, with a live site and one person who signs work off.
Not for: Native app work, document repair on its own, an independent certification audit, or code fixes inside a platform I do not build on.
To qualify: Send the site address and the journeys that matter. Tell me the platform it runs on. Your advisor's scope decision helps, but the audit runs without it.

Send me your site address Not sure which route?

This is for you if

A customer or a partner asked how the service meets the accessibility requirements. You have no written answer.
You are the owner, MD or digital lead. The site takes orders or bookings from consumers in the EU.
The European Accessibility Act applied from 28 June 2025. Nobody has tested your site against the standard since.
Nobody in-house tests against WCAG. Your only check so far was an automated score.
You want the fixes inside the templates and components, not patched onto single pages.
You sell into several EU markets, so more than one regulator can ask you the same question.

This is not for you if

You want a native mobile app fixed. The app is a separate surface with its own tests.
You only want the documents fixed. PDF and office-document repair is its own job.
You want an independent certification. A third party runs that, and it stays independent of me.
You are a public body that buys under the EN 301 549 procurement rules. Start with a procurement specialist.
You want a decision on scope, sector regulator or exemption. Your legal or compliance advisor owns that.
You want a promise of compliance. I do not give one. I test against the standard named in the written scope.
You want the code fixes made inside a store theme or a platform I have no delivery record on. I audit it, then your own developer applies the fix list.

Three routes

Three ways to deal with the issues

The audit picks the route, not the sales pitch. I mark remediation because issues usually sit in shared templates and components. The audit shows where yours sit.

Audit what you have

You need the size of the problem before you spend on fixes. I test the live site and name the issues by page, criterion and fix.

Scoped in writing after the inventory.

Remediate the current site

This page

The build is sound and the issues sit in templates, components, contrast, forms and keyboard order. I fix them in the system, then retest. This route needs repository and CMS access to a build I can change as code.

Scoped in writing after the inventory.

Rebuild it accessible

The current build makes every fix expensive, or the theme blocks the markup you need. I rebuild on a block system with the fixes inside the components.

Scoped in writing after the inventory.

Who does the work

One accountable lead, with proof you can check.

I have shipped a public-sector site built for accessibility on Next.js and Sanity.

I own a page-builder framework with 40 pre-built blocks. On a rebuild the accessibility fixes live inside those blocks from day one.

I built a block system for a marketing team. They then made about 20 pages in 4 weeks.

I ran a web agency for 8 years and shipped CMS sites the whole way through.

You keep the accounts, the code, the content and the evidence. I hand them over before the job closes.

One accountable person runs the whole job. There is no account manager in between.

Scope

What I include, what you supply, what sits outside

What I include

The audit route covers any live site. The remediation and rebuild routes cover builds I can change as code and content: React, Next.js and headless-CMS sites. Send the platform name first and I confirm the route.
An audit of the live site against WCAG 2.1 AA. The written scope names the exact version and level I test.
I name each issue: the page or template, the success criterion it fails, the evidence and the fix. A success criterion is one testable rule inside the standard.
Manual tests beside the automated scan, because a scan alone checks only part of the standard.
Colour-contrast fixes in the design tokens, so the change applies everywhere those tokens appear. Brand colours that fail the rule have to change, and I show you the options first.
Alternative text and control labels across templates and CMS fields, so a screen reader announces what each control does. I list the fields your editor must fill.
Labels, clear error messages and keyboard operation on every form in the tested scope. This covers checkout, booking and account journeys.
Fixes made in the block and component system, not on single pages.
A short supplier letter for each excluded component, with the issues named, ready to send to that vendor.
A draft page for the accessibility statement, and retest evidence with before and after results.
A short written procedure, so your team tests a new feature against the same criteria before it ships.

What you supply

Repository access, CMS access and a staging or preview environment, so you see each fix before it goes live.
The list of journeys that matter: pages, checkout steps, booking flows and account screens.
The names of third-party components in the pages: chat widget, booking engine, payment step, cookie banner.
Your advisor's scope decision, if you already have one. The audit runs without it. Tell me if they relied on the micro-enterprise exemption, because it changes what we test.
Sign-off on the accessibility statement wording. It sits in a document your business owns.
Any assessment you rely on that says a fix costs more than your business can carry. That assessment is yours, not mine.
Caption files, transcripts and audio-description scripts for video, or a decision to buy them as extra work.
A named person who answers content questions about products, alt text and headings.

What sits outside this work

Independent third-party certification. You buy it directly from a certification body. It stays independent of me.
Tests with screen-reader users and other people with disabilities. A specialist research panel runs those, not me.
Native mobile app remediation. The app is a separate surface with its own tests.
PDF and office-document repair. Documents are their own job, on their own scope.
Captions, audio description and spoken subtitles for video. A media supplier makes the files, and I wire them into the templates.
E-book and EPUB accessibility, which carries its own standard.
Self-service terminals and kiosks. Those are products under a different conformity regime.
Repeat audits and checks as the standard changes. We scope those separately after the retest.

The process

Three steps, from audit to retest evidence

The inventory comes first, and it is the audit itself. The written scope then names the standard version, the pages and journeys tested, the excluded components and the approval points.

/01Agreed in writing before the inventory starts.

Inventory

I test the live site and list the issues I find by page, template and success criterion. We agree the journeys in scope, the standard version, the third-party boundary and the named approver.

Output: A named issue list, the tested scope, the excluded third-party components and my route recommendation.

/02Scoped in writing after the inventory.

Approval and production

I fix the templates, components, contrast tokens, forms, keyboard order and media on a private staging site. You review each fix against the issue list.

Output: A fixed staging site, a change log and an acceptance checklist against the named criteria.

/03Scoped in writing after the inventory.

Publication and handover

I publish the fixes and retest the live pages against the same criteria. I then hand over the evidence, the statement draft and the change procedure.

Output: A live fixed site, retest evidence with before and after results, a draft accessibility statement and a written change procedure.

Safeguards

How the scope, the evidence and the ownership stay safe

Remediation work fails in three places. The scope drifts, the evidence is thin, and the fixes decay after handover. Here is what controls each one.

The written scope names the standard version I test, plus the pages, templates and journeys covered.

Third-party components you neither fund nor control sit outside the fix, and the scope names each one. For those I give you the test evidence and the wording to send to that vendor.

The written scope names the manual tests, not just the automated scan.

Every issue carries evidence: the page, the rule it fails and the step that reproduces it.

Fixes live in the components and the design tokens, so they hold on every page that uses them.

A retest against the same criteria after the fixes, with before and after results you keep.

A written change procedure, so the next feature does not bring the same issues back.

Questions

Eight questions this work raises

Can you tell us whether we are in scope?

That is your advisor's call, not mine. What I can do without it is test the live site and name what fails. That is the fact base your advisor needs.

Have you run a full accessibility remediation before?

I have shipped a public-sector site built for accessibility on Next.js and Sanity. I also run accessibility and link checks as part of delivery. A full audit, fix and retest job against WCAG 2.1 AA would be new work for me. The written scope names the criteria, the tools and the retest, so you judge the evidence, not the history.

We were told we have until 2030. Is that right?

Not for a website. The CCPC states that the 2030 transition covers tangible products. It does not cover websites or mobile apps.

We are small, and we are not based in the EU. Does it still apply?

The CCPC publishes separate guidance on obligations for businesses and guidelines for microenterprises. Both point unsure businesses to independent legal advice. I do not read them for you. I work from your advisor's decision, and the written scope records it.

We already installed an accessibility widget. Is that the fix?

No. The Overlay Fact Sheet states that no overlay product brings a site into full compliance with any existing standard. In January 2025 the US Federal Trade Commission also acted against an overlay vendor over the claims it made.

Will you certify that we comply?

No. Certification stays with an independent third party. I test against the standard named in the written scope and hand you retest evidence.

Which standard do you test against?

WCAG 2.1 AA. The written scope names the exact version and level I test against. The European standards work for the Act is still under revision, so your advisor confirms the target first.

What happens if we do nothing?

The Irish regulations are S.I. No. 636 of 2023. They set fines and, on conviction, terms of imprisonment. The CCPC is the compliance authority for e-commerce services. Other sectors answer to other regulators, and your advisor confirms which one applies to you.

Get the issue list first

Send the site address and the journeys that matter. You get the named issues, the risks and my route recommendation in writing. The issue list is yours whether or not you hire me for the fixes.

Send me your site address

Make the site work for the customers it turns away.Keep the evidence that it does.

I test your live site against WCAG 2.1 AA and name the issues I find. I fix each one in the templates and components, then retest.

Built for: A business that sells to consumers in the EU, with a live site and one person who signs work off.
Not for: Native app work, document repair on its own, an independent certification audit, or code fixes inside a platform I do not build on.
To qualify: Send the site address and the journeys that matter. Tell me the platform it runs on. Your advisor's scope decision helps, but the audit runs without it.

This is for you if

A customer or a partner asked how the service meets the accessibility requirements. You have no written answer.

You are the owner, MD or digital lead. The site takes orders or bookings from consumers in the EU.

The European Accessibility Act applied from 28 June 2025. Nobody has tested your site against the standard since.

Nobody in-house tests against WCAG. Your only check so far was an automated score.

You want the fixes inside the templates and components, not patched onto single pages.

You sell into several EU markets, so more than one regulator can ask you the same question.

This is not for you if

You want a native mobile app fixed. The app is a separate surface with its own tests.

You only want the documents fixed. PDF and office-document repair is its own job.

You want an independent certification. A third party runs that, and it stays independent of me.

You are a public body that buys under the EN 301 549 procurement rules. Start with a procurement specialist.

You want a decision on scope, sector regulator or exemption. Your legal or compliance advisor owns that.

You want a promise of compliance. I do not give one. I test against the standard named in the written scope.

You want the code fixes made inside a store theme or a platform I have no delivery record on. I audit it, then your own developer applies the fix list.

Make the site work for the customers it turns away.Keep the evidence that it does.

This is for you if

This is not for you if

Three ways to deal with the issues

Audit what you have

Remediate the current site

Rebuild it accessible

One accountable lead, with proof you can check.

What I include, what you supply, what sits outside

What I include

What you supply

What sits outside this work

Three steps, from audit to retest evidence

Inventory

Approval and production

Publication and handover

How the scope, the evidence and the ownership stay safe

Eight questions this work raises

Other specialist websites

Annual report website

LRD planning application website

Horizon Europe project website

Get the issue list first

Make the site work for the customers it turns away.Keep the evidence that it does.

This is for you if

This is not for you if

Three ways to deal with the issues

Audit what you have

Remediate the current site

Rebuild it accessible

One accountable lead, with proof you can check.

What I include, what you supply, what sits outside

What I include

What you supply

What sits outside this work

Three steps, from audit to retest evidence

Inventory

Approval and production

Publication and handover

How the scope, the evidence and the ownership stay safe

Eight questions this work raises

Other specialist websites

Annual report website

LRD planning application website

Horizon Europe project website

Get the issue list first