What Skills Do We Need?
Fewer than you think. The right ones, applied where they matter.
The old model vs. what works now
The traditional approach to digital accessibility requires multiple specialists: audit consultants, remediation developers, legal advisors, accessibility testers, PDF experts, and ongoing retainers. Each charges by the hour. Each produces reports that need interpreting. The cost adds up, the knowledge walks out the door when they leave, and the organization never becomes self-sufficient.
That model is being replaced. AI trained on 3.7 trillion data points now handles scanning, prioritization, reporting, and monitoring. 91% of ADA claims trace back to 15 key requirements, and these are overwhelmingly content failures - not deep technical issues. If your staff can use email, they can address the majority of what the law asks for, with automated guidance showing them exactly what to fix and where.
This is not about making everyone an accessibility expert. It is about helping all to understand what they need to, focusing on what matters and what makes a difference.
3.7 Trillion
Data points used to train AI automation
Across accessibility, privacy, performance, and experience
94%+
Of the program is handled by automation
Leaving your team to focus on the small percentage that needs a human
91%
Of claims trace to 15 key requirements
Mostly content failures that anyone who can use email can fix
How much specialist effort is replaced
Each bar shows the percentage of traditionally expert-heavy work now handled by AI and automation. The remaining effort is where your team focuses.
Previously required analyst review and manual triage
Previously required consultants to compile and present
Previously required specialist auditors, paid by the hour
Previously required dedicated compliance officers
Guided, not manual - automation shows exactly what to fix and where
Previously required legal and procurement expertise
How it used to work vs. how it works now
The old approach
- •Multiple paid specialists and consultants
- •Manual audits covering 25-50 pages at a time
- •Reports that need interpreting by another expert
- •Knowledge leaves when the consultant does
- •Vendors self-certify their own work
- •One-off project mentality, repeat spend
How it works now
- •AI handles 95% of scanning, reporting, and monitoring
- •Priority content mapped by value and risk, monitored continually
- •Guided correction at the point of the issue
- •Skills stay in-house, built into daily operations
- •Vendor accountability through contractual oversight
- •Ongoing program, compounding improvement
Questions we get asked
Straight answers on skills, staffing, and what the program asks of your team.
Do we need accessibility specialists on staff?
There are two parts to this. First, the technical detail and audit of your platform should be completed by your vendor. Any compliance declarations should be contracted against, and VPATs audited (which we can do for you). That is their responsibility, not yours.
Your responsibility should be and remain with your content. The program is designed so that people with general digital skills can manage the process. AI handles the scanning, prioritization, and reporting. The corrections that matter most are content-level fixes: headings, alt text, link labels, form fields. If you can draft an email, you can handle this work.
What does the AI actually do?
It maps your priority content by value and risk, identifies issues, prioritizes them by legal exposure, and tracks corrections. It draws on 3.7 trillion data points to assess risk across accessibility, privacy, performance, and experience. It handles 94%+ of the workload that would otherwise require paid consultants.
How do we hold vendors accountable?
One of the most important skills is learning how to issue the right contracts. Your CMS provider, your web agency, your PDF vendor - they all need to take responsibility for their own platforms. The program gives you the language, the data, and the leverage to make that happen. This is not adversarial. It is due diligence.
What are the 15 rules that cover 91% of claims?
They relate to content structure and presentation: missing alt text on images, incorrect heading hierarchy, unlabeled form fields, broken links, missing language declarations, insufficient color contrast, and similar issues. These are not deep technical challenges. They are content management tasks that have been overlooked.
How much time does this take each week?
After the initial setup period (about one day a month for three months), allow roughly an hour a week. That covers reviewing the automated reports, assigning corrections, and confirming progress. The program is designed to reduce distraction, not add to it.
What training do staff need?
Awareness training is organizational, not technical. Everyone who publishes content needs to understand the basics: how to write alt text, why heading structure matters, what makes a link label accessible. The platform provides guided correction at the point of the issue, so learning happens in context rather than in a classroom.
Can we reduce the number of external consultants?
That is one of the primary outcomes. The old model relies on specialists charging by the hour to audit, report, and advise. With 95% of the process automated, the need for external expertise drops significantly. Your team gains the skills and the tooling to manage this internally.
What does executive oversight look like?
A monthly risk summary that shows position, progress, and exposure. No technical detail, no jargon. The report is designed for leadership, not web teams. It takes minutes to review and provides the evidence needed to demonstrate due process if a claim arises.
What if we have multiple websites and platforms?
The automation maps priority content by value and risk across your digital footprint - not a single site. PDFs, forms, videos, third-party platforms, subdomains - all of it is mapped and monitored based on where the exposure is greatest. Scale is where automation outperforms the old approach most visibly. Manual testing at this scale is not realistic.
Is this about perfection or about risk management?
Risk management. The legal standard is demonstrating reasonable adjustment, not achieving a perfect score. The program focuses effort on what reduces exposure most: the 15 rules behind 91% of claims, the highest-traffic pages, and the content that affects the most people.