What risk managers and executives actually ask before committing.
Questions that matter
In the many years we have been sorting out Accessibility ('ADA'), we have been asked a lot of questions.
Below are the top 7 questions buyers ask when looking to bring in someone to sort out accessibility.
We believe these reflect how risk managers, executives, compliance teams and budget holders actually think - not, we hope you agree, how suppliers market.
Question One
What problem are you really solving for us?
Buyers want clarity on outcomes - reducing legal risk, improving compliance confidence, or fixing specific user barriers - not tooling or methodology.
We focus on reducing your legal exposure while making accessibility manageable. Our Risk Control Program provides independent auditing, content correction (guided / automated - pages and PDFs), ongoing monitoring, and claims coverage - giving you confidence that your organization is protected. This isn't about checking boxes or achieving theoretical perfection; it's about practical risk reduction that executives and risk managers can rely on.
Question Two
What standard are you working to, and what does "compliant" actually mean?
Buyers want to know whether this is WCAG 2.1 or 2.2, AA or AAA, and whether "compliance" means defensible evidence or theoretical alignment.
Our baseline is WCAG 2.1 AA as the baseline standard, which aligns with ADA requirements and most regulatory expectations. However, we define 'compliant' as having defensible evidence of good-faith effort and continuous improvement - not theoretical perfection. Our reporting provides the audit trail and documentation you need if challenged.
Also key to compliance is not just your actions, but also ensuring vendors are in line - evolving regulation means they can share liability (even for your content issues - unless they have explicitly confirmed 'their product, system, platform etc DOESN'T provide compliance) and remember the law is about demonstrating reasonable adjustment - measured against the WCAG standards.
What we refer to as a pragmatic approach, is far more about what is achievable - significant focus on what matters, what is important. 'What people are sued for' is far more important than a technical point, on a page no one ever visits.
How much internal effort will this require from our team?
Often the deciding factor. Buyers want to understand time, coordination, approvals, content changes, and ongoing involvement.
Expect a couple of days of work in the first 3 months to get set up and address initial priorities. After that, allow approximately an hour a week for ongoing maintenance. We administer the program and handle the technical complexity - your team focuses on implementing the prioritized actions we identify, not learning accessibility standards.
We have been dealing with accessibility for over 25 years. We were the first to have a commercial accessibility testing product - this has allowed us to build a significant data set (3.7 trillion data points). Our automation is well trained, trusted - helping up-skill your staff, with little or no training or support costs.
The point is, automation does 90%+ of the work - making vendors contractually accountable 'liable', focus on what matters = less distraction, lower costs.
Question Four
What happens after the initial fixes are done?
Buyers want to know whether accessibility will quietly degrade again, and whether this is a one-off clean-up or something that remains under control.
Accessibility naturally degrades as websites change - new content, updates, and redesigns introduce new issues. Our monitoring maps priority content by value and risk, alerting you to new issues as they appear. This is not a one-off audit; it is an ongoing control program that keeps accessibility under management.
Question Five
How do you prioritize what matters, rather than fixing everything?
Most buyers already know perfection is unrealistic. The focus is on assurance that effort will be directed at real user impact and real risk reduction.
Our AI-powered risk scoring identifies which issues carry the highest legal exposure and user impact. We prioritize based on real-world risk, not theoretical WCAG completeness. High-traffic pages with significant barriers get attention first. Low-risk technical violations that nobody will ever encounter are deprioritized accordingly.
What evidence do we get to show progress and manage accountability?
Reports, audit trails, board-ready summaries, and proof that can be relied on if challenged by regulators, auditors, or legal teams.
You receive ongoing risk scores, detailed audit trails of all actions taken, and board-ready reporting that demonstrates good-faith effort. If challenged by a demand letter or regulatory inquiry, you have documented evidence of your compliance program - not just a point-in-time audit from months ago.
Question Seven
What does this cost over time, not just upfront?
Total cost of ownership matters. This includes remediation, monitoring, reporting, and whether future changes introduce repeat cost.
Our annual program includes auditing, monitoring, PDF remediation, reporting, claims management, and $50,000 in coverage. There are no surprise costs when your website changes or when you need to pull a report for the board. The total cost of ownership is predictable and typically 60-70% less than managing separate tools and consultants.
