Find accessibility barriers before they become customer barriers. Rudrriv combines WCAG-focused automated checks, human review, keyboard testing, selected screen-reader checks and developer-ready remediation guidance for websites and web interfaces.
Accessibility work supports standards alignment and usability improvement. It is not legal advice or a guarantee of legal compliance.
Priority page · WCAG 2.2 AA-oriented assessment
Start with one priority page, review the core site experience, or scope audit and remediation together. Ad spend, paid software subscriptions and third-party certification fees are separate where applicable.
For a landing page, form, checkout, homepage or other priority experience.
For small websites that need a structured audit across key templates and journeys.
For websites or web apps that need audit findings translated into prioritized code fixes.
Scope is confirmed before work begins. Complex web applications, authenticated user journeys, large template libraries, mobile apps, document remediation and formal VPAT/ACR work require separate scoping.
Get in touch with our expert. Tell us what you need, and we'll help identify the most suitable accessibility testing, remediation scope and pricing for your website or web application.
The process separates discovery, testing, prioritization, remediation and retesting so you can see what was found, what changed and what still needs attention.
Confirm pages, templates, components, browsers and user flows.
Run targeted checks to surface machine-detectable issues quickly.
Test keyboard use, focus, semantics, forms, content and interactions.
Map impact, severity, evidence, WCAG references and fix guidance.
Implement agreed remediation or provide developer-ready actions.
Verify agreed fixes and document remaining risks or next actions.
A good review looks at whether people can perceive content, operate controls, understand what is happening and use the experience with assistive technology—not just whether an automated scanner turns green.
Help users access information through sight, hearing or assistive alternatives.
Make interactive experiences usable without relying on a mouse or precise pointer input.
Use clear structure, predictable behavior and meaningful instructions and errors.
Improve compatibility with browsers, screen readers and other assistive technologies.
The exact findings vary by site, but these are common patterns that can block customers or make tasks unnecessarily difficult.
Different checks answer different questions. We use each method for what it does best rather than treating one scanner score as the whole accessibility picture.
Efficiently surface detectable issues and patterns across the agreed page set.
Validate usability questions that automation cannot reliably answer on its own.
The service is designed to help teams move from “we have an accessibility score” to “we know which barriers matter and what to do next.”
Findings include enough context to reproduce and understand issues.
Pages, journeys and retest expectations are agreed before work begins.
Recommendations are written so technical teams can act on them.
Remote support for websites, teams and customers worldwide.
Severity and recurrence help focus remediation effort where it matters.
Agreed fixes can be checked again rather than assumed complete.
Review priority templates and journeys before they reach a wider audience.
Focus: navigation, forms, components, contentCatch accessibility regressions introduced by visual or component changes.
Focus: focus states, contrast, semanticsReview high-value journeys where small barriers can block task completion.
Focus: forms, errors, keyboard, status messagesTurn a long list of scanner alerts into a human-reviewed remediation plan.
Focus: impact, severity, recurring patternsAssess theme, template and content patterns across commonly used site pages.
Focus: templates, menus, forms, contentIdentify accessibility issues that repeat across buttons, dialogs, inputs and navigation.
Focus: component states and behaviorReview an agreed digital experience before adoption or renewal discussions.
Focus: evidence and known barriersVerify whether agreed accessibility fixes are working as intended.
Focus: closure evidence and residual issuesAnswers to common questions about testing scope, standards, remediation and deliverables.
The audit can review WCAG-focused issues including keyboard navigation, focus behavior, headings and landmarks, alternative text, form labels and errors, color contrast, links and controls, responsive behavior, semantic HTML and selected screen-reader interactions.
Yes. The service can assess agreed pages and components against relevant WCAG 2.2 success criteria, typically with AA as the practical target unless another level or standard is agreed.
No. Automated tools are useful for detectable issues, but many barriers require human judgment. The service combines automated checks with manual review according to the selected scope.
Yes. Remediation can be scoped for HTML, CSS, JavaScript, templates or supported CMS themes and components after the audit findings are confirmed.
Standard delivery is 5 to 7 working days for the defined entry and core scopes. Larger sites, complex web applications and remediation projects may require a custom delivery schedule.
No. An accessibility audit and remediation service can support accessibility improvement and standards alignment, but it is not legal advice, certification or a guarantee against legal claims.
Depending on plan, deliverables can include an issue register, severity and impact notes, screenshots or evidence, WCAG references, developer-ready remediation guidance, prioritized next actions and a retest summary.
Yes. Website accessibility can be reviewed across common CMS platforms and custom front-end implementations when the pages and user flows are accessible for testing.
Screen-reader spot checks can be included for selected flows and components, together with keyboard-only testing. The exact assistive-technology matrix depends on the selected plan and agreed scope.
These require separate scoping. An accessibility statement or VPAT/ACR-style deliverable should be based on an appropriate audit scope and should not be generated as a substitute for testing.
Share the website, pages or journeys you want reviewed. We’ll use the information to confirm a realistic scope, plan and delivery approach before work starts.
Required fields are marked with an asterisk. Your enquiry stays on this page after submission.
