Service · Accessibility Pass
Tested by keyboard, not just by software
A full WCAG 2.1 AA audit against the European Accessibility Act, the actual remediation work, and a published accessibility statement. This site is held to the same standard — check the statement yourself.
What the accessibility pass is
The accessibility pass is a one-time, fixed-price service from NS Web Studio, costing €900. It covers a full WCAG 2.1 AA audit combining automated tools with genuine manual testing — keyboard-only navigation and calculated colour contrast, not just a scanner report — followed by the actual remediation work and a published accessibility statement matched word for word to what was tested. It’s the standard every NS Web Studio build already meets; this brings an existing site up to the same level.
Fit check
This is worth it if…
This sounds like your situation
- You serve EU customers and want to take the European Accessibility Act seriously rather than hope it doesn’t come up
- You tender for public sector or institutional work where an accessibility statement is often a requirement
- You want to know your site is genuinely usable with a keyboard or screen reader, not just automated-tool-clean
- Your site has never had a real accessibility review, only whatever a plugin claims to check
Worth knowing before you buy
- This is not legal advice, and no one can promise legal compliance — only genuine, documented conformance with the technical standard
- If the site’s structure is very broken, this becomes closer to a partial rebuild — I’ll tell you honestly if that’s the case before quoting a fixed €900
- PDF and document accessibility is a related but separate skill; ask if that’s what you actually need
An honest distinction worth making. “WCAG 2.1 AA conformant” is a specific, testable technical claim. “Legally compliant with the European Accessibility Act” is a legal conclusion that depends on your business, your sector and your specific obligations. This service delivers the first, documented and genuine. For the second, talk to a lawyer — I’ll give you an honest technical foundation either way.
The full list
Everything in the €900
What you get
Audit
- Automated testing with axe DevTools and Google Lighthouse
- Manual keyboard-only navigation of every page — the check automated tools genuinely can’t do
- Colour contrast verified by calculation, not by eye
- Structural review: heading order, landmarks, form labels, alt text
- Testing at 200% and 400% zoom
Remediation
- Issues found are actually fixed, prioritised by real impact on someone using assistive technology
- Focus states, ARIA labels, contrast, heading structure and form labelling corrected
Documentation
- A published accessibility statement, matched precisely to what was actually tested and fixed
- A written summary of testing methods and any known limitations, stated honestly rather than glossed over
Not included — so nobody is surprised
- Legal compliance advice or certification. This delivers technical conformance, not a legal opinion
- PDF or document remediation. A related but separate service, scoped on request
- Video captioning or audio description. Available as an add-on if the site includes media, quoted separately
- Ongoing monitoring. A site changes as content is added; re-checking periodically is a Care plan conversation, not part of this one-time pass
- Structural rebuilds. If the underlying markup is too broken to remediate within scope, that becomes a separate, honestly quoted conversation
If the audit shows the site needs more than remediation — genuine structural rework — you’ll hear that plainly before I take the €900, not after.
What changes
Why manual testing is the part that matters
Automated tools catch a minority
Scanners find missing alt text and contrast ratios reliably. They can’t tell you whether a screen reader user can actually complete your contact form — that needs a person testing it by hand.
A statement that says what’s true
Published exactly matched to what was tested, including honest limitations if any remain, rather than a generic template claiming full compliance regardless of reality.
The same bar this site holds itself to
Nothing here is aspirational. Every claim about testing method and standard is exactly what was applied to nswebstudio.com itself, checkable in its own published statement.
How it runs
The five to seven days, step by step
-
Days 1–2
Automated pass
axe DevTools and Lighthouse run across the site to catch the issues automated testing genuinely finds reliably: contrast ratios, missing alt text, obvious structural gaps.
-
Days 3–4
Manual testing
Every page navigated by keyboard alone. Forms, menus and interactive elements checked for whether they’re genuinely operable, not just technically present.
-
Days 5–6
Remediation
Fixes applied in priority order — what actually blocks someone from using the site first, cosmetic issues after.
-
Day 7
Statement and handover
The accessibility statement published, matched to what was genuinely tested, plus a written summary of the whole process for your records.
Pairs well with
What people usually add alongside this
Both are technical health checks that often touch the same code — frequently worth doing together.
Worth it if: the site hasn’t had a proper technical pass in either area.
Technical SEO audit
€650Accessible markup and crawlable markup overlap more than people expect — clean semantic HTML helps both.
Worth it if: you want the fuller technical picture, not just accessibility on its own.
Care plan
€190/moNew content added after this pass can introduce new issues. This keeps someone watching without paying for a full re-audit every time.
Skip it if: the site rarely changes once this is done.
Questions
What people ask about the accessibility pass
Does this guarantee legal compliance with the European Accessibility Act?
No, and treat anyone who claims otherwise with real caution. This delivers genuine, documented WCAG 2.1 AA technical conformance — a specific, testable standard. Whether that satisfies your particular legal obligations depends on your sector, your business and jurisdiction-specific detail that’s a legal question, not a design one. I’ll give you an honest technical foundation and a properly documented statement; the legal conclusion is for a lawyer.
What’s actually tested manually versus automated?
Automated tools reliably catch missing alt text, contrast ratio failures and some structural markup problems. They cannot tell you whether a real person navigating by keyboard alone can complete your contact form, whether focus order makes sense, or whether a screen reader announces your navigation in a usable way. That’s the manual pass, and it’s where most of the actual finding happens.
Do you fix PDFs and documents too?
Not as part of this service — PDF and document remediation uses different tools and a genuinely different skill set from web accessibility. If you need that too, mention it in the brief and I’ll either scope it separately or point you towards someone who specialises in it.
Can this be done on a site you didn’t build?
Often, yes, after a short look at the site first. What matters is whether the underlying markup and structure are sound enough to build on. If they’re not, I’ll say so and recommend a technical SEO audit first rather than layer this on top of a broken foundation. Google’s own introduction to structured data is a useful read if you want to understand what “sound markup” actually means before we start.
What happens after the statement is published — do I need to redo this?
Not automatically, but a site that keeps changing can drift out of conformance as new content and features are added. The WCAG 2.1 quick reference is worth bookmarking if your team adds content regularly, so new pages start out compliant rather than needing a fresh audit each time.
Why does accessibility matter for SEO too?
A lot of what accessibility requires — clean heading structure, meaningful alt text, semantic HTML, logical page order — is also exactly what search engines and AI answer engines need to understand a page correctly. It’s not a coincidence; both are ultimately about a page being genuinely legible to something that isn’t looking at it the way a sighted person does.
Send your site, we’ll take an honest look
Include the URL in the project brief. If the site needs more than remediation to reach this standard, you’ll hear that plainly before anything is charged.
Start your project briefOr email me at info@nswebstudio.com