An audit that comes with the fix.

The national accessibility firms audit. They are good at it. What they generally do not do is remediate, so the finding and the fix sit with different suppliers, and the gap between them is where accessibility work goes to die. You pay for the report, the report is accurate, and twelve months later the site still fails.

We do both, in one team. That changes what the audit is for: not a document that proves you looked, but the first half of a job whose second half is already scoped. It also makes the audit better, because the people writing the findings know what it will cost to fix each one.

• Audit and remediation quoted together, by the same team
• Findings written as work, not as a compliance inventory
• Real assistive-technology testing, not an automated score
• Retest after remediation, so the fix is evidenced

The Australian Human Rights Commission affirmed WCAG 2.2 Level AA as the recommended minimum benchmark in April 2025, replacing WCAG 2.0, which had stood for about a decade. If your last accessibility work was done to 2.0, the bar has moved twice since.

The obligation itself is older and broader than any version number. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 covers public-facing digital services, and the AHRC’s guidelines treat SaaS and PaaS platforms, CAPTCHAs, two-factor authentication, QR codes and biometric authentication as covered by it — each of which needs an accessible alternative rather than a note in a VPAT. Federal government services carry more again under the DTA’s Digital Experience Policy, in force since 1 January 2025.

One point worth knowing before you sign anything: you can outsource the delivery of a digital service, but not the responsibility for it being accessible. That liability stays with you, which is why accessibility belongs in the contract rather than in the kick-off meeting.

• WCAG 2.2 AA as the build floor, not a finishing task
• Conformance measured against the hardware and software people actually use
• Accessibility clauses written into the contract, not assumed
• Documentation of what was tested and how, for when somebody asks

Overlay widgets — the ones that promise WCAG compliance from a line of JavaScript — do not work. They cannot fix semantics they did not author, they frequently break the assistive technology they claim to help, and the accessibility community regards them as actively harmful. Several vendors have faced legal action from the users they were supposed to be serving.

If an overlay would have fixed your site, your site did not have an accessibility problem. We build it properly instead, which is slower to say and cheaper to own.

• No overlay widgets, under any circumstances
• Semantics and keyboard support built in, not bolted on
• Content authors given patterns they can use without breaking it
• Australian hosting, on the same hardware as everything else we run