Accessibility

Website accessibility and WCAG compliance.

Accessibility is far cheaper designed in than bolted on, and the parts that matter most are unglamorous: contrast, keyboard access, labels and headings that mean something.

Built to WCAG AA Measured, not claimed No overlay widgets
Where it sits

Mostly decisions, not features.

Accessibility gets treated as a feature to add, which is why it is usually expensive. In practice most of it is decisions made early: enough contrast between text and background, a heading structure that describes the page, form fields with real labels, and everything reachable with a keyboard.

Made at the start those cost nothing. Retrofitted into a finished site they mean revisiting the design system, the templates and often the content — which is why an audit failed late is one of the more expensive things that can happen to a web project.

It also matters commercially beyond the obvious. Public sector buyers and larger organisations increasingly ask for a conformance statement during procurement, and not having one quietly removes you from consideration.

Able Web Services Ltd.UK web development
200+PROJECTS DELIVERED
140+CLIENTS SUPPORTED
15+YEARS ESTABLISHED
UKBASED & HOSTED

What we do

  • Bespoke websites and custom CMS development
  • Ecommerce, custom checkout and subscriptions
  • Web applications, portals and internal tools
  • API, CRM and business systems integration
  • Retained support, maintenance and managed hosting
  • White-label development for agencies

Working UK-wide and internationally — directly with businesses, and white label behind design and marketing agencies.

Discuss a project
What we do

The parts that make the difference.

Contrast, measured

Every text and background pair checked against the AA threshold rather than eyeballed. We measure it, because it is the single commonest failure and the easiest to miss.

Keyboard access

Everything reachable and operable without a mouse, with a visible focus indicator. Custom menus and modals are where this usually breaks.

Meaningful structure

Headings that describe the page rather than being chosen for size, and landmarks so screen reader users can skip to the content.

Forms with real labels

Properly associated labels and errors that say what is wrong in words, not just a red outline.

Images described usefully

Alt text that conveys what the image is for in context, and decorative images marked as decorative rather than described pointlessly.

Motion respected

Animation reduced for visitors who have asked their system for that, which is one line of CSS and routinely skipped.

Straight answers

Honest about the limits.

Overlay widgets are not a fix

The bolt-on toolbars promising instant compliance are widely criticised by disabled users and have not prevented legal action elsewhere. We would rather fix the site.

Automated testing finds maybe a third

Tools catch contrast and missing labels. They cannot tell you whether your alt text is useful or your focus order makes sense. Those need a person.

We are not auditors

We build to AA as standard and will fix what an audit finds. Where you need a formal independent audit, that should come from somebody who did not build the site.

Related services

The wider picture.

Related work

Projects of a similar shape.

A lot of our work is delivered white label or under agreement, so these describe the problem and the approach rather than naming the client.

Related

Also worth reading.

Questions

What people ask about accessibility.

Is accessibility a legal requirement for us?
In the UK the Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments for disabled people, which is generally understood to cover websites, and public sector bodies have specific regulations with WCAG AA attached. Whether a particular obligation applies to your organisation is a question for your legal advisers rather than for us — but AA is the standard everyone converges on.
Can you make our existing site accessible?
Usually a good way, yes. How far depends on the foundation: contrast, labels and headings are generally fixable, while a site built around a component library with accessibility problems may need those components replaced. We would assess before quoting.
What about those accessibility toolbar widgets?
We would advise against them. They are widely criticised by the disabled users they claim to help, and they have not prevented legal action in jurisdictions where this is tested. They also cost money that would fix the underlying problems.
How would we know where we stand?
An assessment covering automated checks plus the things only a person can judge — keyboard journeys, focus order, whether alt text is actually useful. You get the main findings on a call. A formal written assessment is a short piece of paid work.
Next step

Send us the site and we will tell you where you stand.

What passes, what does not, and what fixing it would involve — separating the quick wins from the things that need design work.