Accessibility Research With Real Users
We combine sessions with disabled participants using their own assistive technology and a WCAG 2.2 review of your key flows, so you learn both where the site fails the standard and where it fails people.
Short answer
Accessibility research pairs task-based sessions with people who use assistive technology and an expert review of key flows against WCAG 2.2. You receive barriers ranked by severity, the success criteria involved, recordings where consent allows, and specific fixes. It is research, not a legal certification.
On this page
Why include disabled participants
Automated checkers and expert reviews catch many accessibility problems, but not all of them. The W3C's guidance on involving users states that testing with disabled and older people "identifies usability issues that are not discovered by conformance evaluation alone" 1. A page can technically meet a success criterion and still be slow, confusing or exhausting to use with a screen reader.
The same W3C guidance recommends combining user involvement with conformance evaluation rather than choosing one. That is the structure of this service: a review against the standard, and sessions that show what the standard does not capture.
Who takes part
We recruit participants who use assistive technology in daily life, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, voice control, switch devices or keyboard-only navigation, as well as people with cognitive or low-vision needs who may not use specialist tools. Participants use their own devices and settings, because that is how they experience your site.
Participants are paid fairly for their time and expertise. Recruitment works through specialist panels and disability organizations, and may take longer than general recruitment. We plan sessions with extra time and offer breaks.
The WCAG 2.2 review
Alongside the sessions, a reviewer checks your key flows against WCAG 2.2 Level AA. WCAG 2.2 became a W3C standard on October 5, 2023, adding nine success criteria and removing 4.1.1 Parsing 2. New criteria such as Focus Not Obscured, Dragging Movements, Target Size (Minimum), Consistent Help, Redundant Entry and Accessible Authentication affect many common website patterns.
The review uses keyboard testing, screen reader spot checks, zoom and reflow testing, contrast measurement and code inspection. Automated scans are used to find candidates quickly, but every reported issue is checked by hand.
What you receive
| Deliverable | Contents |
|---|---|
| Barrier report | Each barrier with severity, affected users, the WCAG success criterion involved and a fix |
| Session findings | What participants experienced on each task, with quotes and clips where consent allows |
| Conformance notes | Pass or fail notes against WCAG 2.2 AA for the flows in scope |
| Fix guidance | Code-level or content-level suggestions your developers can apply |
| Readout | A walkthrough with your design and development leads |
What this service is not
This is research and review. It is not a legal opinion, a certification or a guarantee that a site complies with any law. The Department of Justice states that businesses open to the public have flexibility in how they make their web content accessible, and points to existing technical standards such as WCAG as helpful guidance 3. What that means for your business is a question for a qualified attorney. Our accessibility testing guide summarizes the cited sources.
We also do not install overlay widgets or recommend them as a fix. Barriers are fixed in the site's own code and content.
Timeline
We plan for four to six weeks, with recruitment as the longest step. A review-only scope without sessions takes one to three weeks.
Accessibility research questions
Do you provide a VPAT or conformance statement?
We provide conformance notes for the flows in scope. A formal accessibility conformance report covering a whole product needs a broader scope, which we can discuss.
How many participants do you include?
We plan for five to eight participants per round, chosen to cover several kinds of assistive technology. That is enough to reveal serious barriers, not to measure how common each one is.
Can our developers join the sessions?
Yes, if you wish, watching with cameras and microphones off. Watching a screen reader user work through a form is one of the most effective ways for a developer to understand why a fix matters.
Sources
- Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, updated June 1, 2021, links updated April 30, 2024.Primary, standards body
- What's New in WCAG 2.2, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, WCAG 2.2 published October 5, 2023.Primary, standards body
- Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, issued March 18, 2022.Primary, government
Not sure which method fits?
Describe the problem in your own words. We will suggest the smallest piece of research that can answer it, in writing, before any work starts.
- No obligation
- Written scope
- Plain-English findings