Website accessibility check - WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 A/AA

What this is

A factual, reproducible technical check of a web page against the parts of WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 level A and AA that can be measured automatically. You get a report that lists exactly what failed, where, a screenshot of each failing element, and a command to reproduce it.

Written for people who ship websites and want evidence before handoff, or who have been asked "is this accessible?" and want an honest answer rather than a green badge.

Most often that is a Shopify or WordPress site about to be handed to a client, or a small SaaS product being put in front of a procurement questionnaire that asks for an accessibility statement or a conformance report.

If you are being asked for an ACR or VPAT

Be careful here, because the honest answer is narrow. Procurement in the US typically requires an Accessibility Conformance Report built on ITI's VPAT 2.x, and buyers are told to ask how it was tested. The EU Accessibility Act (in force since 28 June 2025) asks for a statement of how the requirements are met, not a list of defects. An automated tool cannot fill a VPAT's Supports / Partially Supports / Does Not Support cells truthfully, because those cover manual criteria too.

The US government says the same thing in writing. Section508.gov: automated scanning tools "currently only cover 30%-35% of accessibility requirements", their results "should never be represented as 508 compliance results", and should be used as "risk monitoring mechanisms" instead. Massachusetts reviews ACRs and marks the check "No" when the Evaluation Methods Used field is blank or "only includes an automated scanning tool".

So I will not sell you a conformance report, and you should not buy one from anyone who runs a scanner. What I do sell is the role the guidance actually gives automation: a dated, scoped, reproducible **risk-monitoring record** — what was tested, when, with which engine and exact version, which criteria were covered by automation, which were explicitly NOT tested, how to reproduce every number, and the raw data. Run it before remediation to get a baseline, and again afterwards to show what changed. Nobody can accuse you of claiming conformance, because the document never claims it.

If you need the ACR table itself, it has to come with a human evaluator going through every criterion. I will tell you that plainly rather than sell you something that fails the first question procurement asks.

What you get

• A measured summary: how many rules failed, across how many elements, and how many passed.
• Each finding mapped to its WCAG success criterion (e.g. 1.4.3 Contrast, 3.1.1 Language of Page).
• A cropped screenshot of each failing element, so you can see the problem, not just read about it.
• A plain-language instruction for how to fix each finding — what to change, not just what is wrong. This is the part free scanners do not give you.
• The exact HTML of a failing element.
• A "what was not checked" section that states plainly what an automated check cannot see.
• Raw measurement data (JSON) so anyone can verify the numbers.

Price

45 USDT for a single page. 55 USDT for two pages, 67 USDT for three. Prices are fixed and agreed before I start.

For context on where that sits: manual accessibility audits run roughly $1,000 to $8,000 for a small site, and live freelance listings for accessibility work currently post budgets of $300, $1,500 and $2,500. The very cheap end ($25 to $300 on marketplaces) is almost always raw scanner output with no analysis, which is why it is not trusted. This is priced below professional manual audit rates because it covers only what can be measured, and it says exactly what it does not cover.

If a page turns out to be checkable but effectively fine, you still get the report and the evidence that it passed.

You also get the headline count up front — how many rules failed across how many elements, and how many passed — so you can compare one page against another at a glance. It is a count, not a grade: I will not print a "compliance percentage", because no automated test can honestly support one.

How to order

1. Send the agreed amount in USDT, TRC20 network only, to:

TJUvWwC9pLfdGHKa1k41ZonQ6eECCqeUXs

2. Send a message containing the URL you want checked and the transaction id. Contact address is at the bottom of this page.

3. You get the report within 24 hours, usually much sooner.

Payments are checked on the TRON blockchain before delivery. There is no account to create and no card data involved.

What this is NOT

This matters, so it is stated before you buy:

• It is not a certification. There is no such thing as "certified accessible" from an automated check, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a liability.
• It is not a legal opinion, and it is not a statement of ADA or European Accessibility Act conformance. Conformance requires a human evaluator going through every page and interaction.
• It is not a fix. You get findings and locations; remediation is your developer's work.

What is not checked

Deque Systems, who maintain the axe-core engine this check uses, measured their own automated testing as covering 57% of issue volume across 13,000 pages — which is better than the commonly quoted 20-30%, and still means nearly half of real problems need a human. This report always lists these as unchecked rather than silently omitting them:

• Screen reader behaviour (NVDA, VoiceOver, JAWS) and live region announcements.
• Keyboard traps and full keyboard operability beyond a sampled tab order.
• Logical reading order, and meaning carried only by visual position.
• Whether existing alt text is meaningful, as opposed to merely present.
• Cognitive load, plain language, and error recovery in real user flows.
• Pages behind a login, or reached only by interaction.
• Any page other than the URL you gave me.

Why the scope is narrow

Because a specific, true sentence is worth more than a broad vague one. "This page fails WCAG 2.1 AA 1.4.3: the navigation links render at 2.8:1 contrast against their background, screenshot attached" is something you can act on and check. "Your site is accessible" is not.

How the check is done

The page is loaded in a real headless Chrome browser, then evaluated with axe-core (the same engine embedded in most browser accessibility tools) against the WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 A/AA rule set, plus manual-equivalent measurements it does not cover: a 25-step keyboard tab traversal recording which elements show no visible focus indicator, image alt-text presence, form label association, declared page language, and heading structure.

You get the command used, so you or your developer can re-run it and get the same result.

Free: the testing-record template

If a client or a procurement form has asked you to prove your site is accessible, this is the document to write, and it costs nothing:

The testing record — what to hand over when asked how your site was tested

It is a blank template with the seven sections that matter (identification, method with exact tool and version, coverage criterion by criterion, findings, what was NOT tested, reproduction, and the non-claim statement), plus the wording to avoid when someone has asked for a VPAT and you cannot produce one honestly.

Sample report

Published in full, on a public site (craigslist.org), so you can judge the format before paying anything:

Sample accessibility report — craigslist.org

It found 2 automated rules failing across 20 elements, including a missing page language declaration — a real WCAG 3.1.1 failure — with each failing element listed, screenshotted and given a fix. The sample is unedited, including the "what was not checked" section that makes the result look less impressive.

Terms

• Fixed price, agreed before work starts. No upcharges mid-job.
• Payment in USDT on TRC20 only. If you send on another network the funds are not received if something goes wrong, so please use TRC20.
• Delivery is by report file. Findings are measurements taken at a point in time; a site that changes afterwards will produce different results.
• If a page cannot be checked (behind a login, blocking automated access, or serving only a bot challenge), you are told and not charged.

Contact

Reply to whichever place you found this listing. State the URL and the amount sent.

If you found this on Nostr, my public key is:

npub17fpmupusfatxz9ztmu5qtt8hu4aag69q9lw6d7r6lq9zwcelwrtqjrjczd

A reply or a DM to that key reaches me. No signup, no email required — that is also why there is no phone number, no invoice system and no company behind this: just a person who runs checks and writes them up.