What you actually receive
1 — The findings list (sample excerpt)
Every engagement starts with this, free: each failure located, mapped to its WCAG 2.1 success criterion, with the fix stated plainly. A full list for a typical storefront runs 25–60 rows across the purchase flow.
| Location | Finding | WCAG 2.1 | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Homepage, hero banner | Promotional image has no text alternative; conveys sale pricing visually only | 1.1.1 (A) | Write alt text stating the offer; decorative layers get empty alt |
| All pages, header | Search input has no programmatic label (placeholder only) | 3.3.2 / 4.1.2 (A) | Add visually-hidden label bound to the input |
| Product page | Color options are unlabeled swatch inputs; selection not announced | 1.3.1 / 4.1.2 (A) | Fieldset/legend + per-swatch accessible names; announce state |
| Cart drawer | Opens without moving focus; cannot be dismissed by keyboard | 2.1.1 / 2.4.3 (A) | Focus management on open/close; Escape closes; focus returns to trigger |
| Footer, newsletter | Error state shown by color alone; no text error message | 3.3.1 / 1.4.1 (A) | Inline text error tied to the field with aria-describedby |
2 — The remediation summary letter (sample)
Delivered after the fixes and retest. If you're in litigation, this is the document your attorney can put on the table; if you're not, it's your dated record that the work was done to the standard.
Re: Accessibility remediation of [storedomain.com] — summary of work performed and conformance mapping
To whom it may concern,
Between [date] and [date], I performed code-level accessibility remediation of [storedomain.com], a storefront operated by [Client], covering the homepage, collection, product, cart, and checkout-entry templates. The engagement comprised a full audit against WCAG 2.1 Level AA, remediation of each finding in the site's theme code, and a post-remediation retest of all audited flows.
Forty-one findings were identified and remediated. Each is enumerated in the attached schedule with its location, the WCAG 2.1 success criterion implicated, the code-level change made, and the retest result. Categories addressed: text alternatives (1.1.1), information and relationships (1.3.1), use of color (1.4.1), contrast minimums (1.4.3), keyboard operability (2.1.1), focus order and visibility (2.4.3, 2.4.7), labels and instructions (3.3.1–3.3.2), and name/role/value (4.1.2).
On retest dated [date], the audited flows contained no outstanding Level A or Level AA failures within the engagement's scope. A quarterly retest schedule is available to maintain this state as the site's content and theme evolve.
I am an independent web accessibility engineer and not an attorney; this letter documents engineering work and is not a legal opinion or a certification of legal compliance.
Signed, dated, with the full findings schedule attached.
Alex Danielsson — Independent web accessibility engineer
Want yours?
The audit that produces document #1 is free, whether or not you continue: [email protected]. Scope and pricing are public on the what-remediation-includes page.