Skip to content
NeuralYug

Work · Public-facing digital services

Bringing a public-facing app up to WCAG 2.1 AA

Auditing and remediating a customer-facing application against WCAG 2.1 AA, cutting legal exposure and reaching the audience most sites currently lock out.

blueprint30 Jun 2026
95%
Home pages with a detectable WCAG failure, industry-wide
5000+
US digital-accessibility lawsuits filed in 2025
29%
US adults who report having a disability

This is a solution blueprint — a reference architecture we can build for your business. The figures above are cited industry benchmarks for this class of system, not results claimed for a named client.

The pipeline we'd build

4 stages

Stage 01 · Audit

An automated and manual WCAG 2.1 AA audit — axe-core plus real screen-reader testing.

The challenge

A public-facing service portal carried the same failure patterns WebAIM finds on the vast majority of scanned home pages — low-contrast text, unlabeled form fields, keyboard traps — each one a barrier for a meaningful share of visitors.

What we did

We run an automated + manual WCAG 2.1 AA audit (axe-core plus real screen-reader testing), then remediate component-by-component using accessible primitives with semantic HTML and focus management built into a shared design system, not patched on per page.

The outcome

Closing these common failure classes addresses both the litigation trend UsableNet tracks (5,000+ US filings in 2025 alone) and the roughly 1-in-4 US adults the CDC reports living with a disability.

Stack

ReactTypeScriptRadix UIaxe-coreNode.jsPostgreSQL

WebAIM's 2025 scan of the top one million home pages found 94.8% still carry at least one detectable WCAG failure, averaging 51 errors per page — evidence that accessibility gaps are the industry default, not the exception. UsableNet's 2025 year-end report counted over 5,000 US digital-accessibility lawsuits filed in a single year, up from 4,187 in 2024.

The failure patterns behind that 94.8%

The most common WCAG failures aren't exotic — they're the same handful of mistakes repeated across nearly every non-compliant site: low-contrast text, images missing alt text, form fields with no accessible label, and keyboard traps in custom widgets. The table below breaks down where WebAIM's 2025 scan found the failures concentrated.

Most common WCAG failure types (WebAIM Million, 2025)

Share of the top 1M scanned home pages exhibiting each failure

Where the gaps are
Typical fix
Low-contrast text79%Design-token contrast audit
Missing image alt text55%Alt-text pass in CMS/build
Empty or missing form labels48%Accessible form primitives
Missing document language16%One-line HTML attribute

WebAIM, "The WebAIM Million" 2025 report (webaim.org/projects/million/2025) — illustrative allocation by failure type, based on the report's published category breakdown.

Remediation, component by component

We run an automated + manual WCAG 2.1 AA audit (axe-core plus real screen-reader testing), then remediate inside a shared component library — buttons, forms, and navigation get fixed once, not on every page that reuses them — using accessible primitives (Radix UI) with semantic HTML and focus management built in, the same approach behind our own site's design-system rebuild.

Closing these common failure classes both reduces exposure to the litigation trend UsableNet tracks and opens access to the roughly 1-in-4 US adults the CDC's Disability and Health Data System reports living with a disability — a market segment most non-compliant sites are quietly locking out.

At a glance

Client

Solution blueprint

Sector

Public-facing digital services

Service

Studio Engineering

Kind

blueprint

Headline result

94.8% · Home pages with a detectable WCAG failure, industry-wide

Handover

Documented, tested code in your repository

Questions we were asked

Is 94.8% of sites having failures really accurate?

Yes — that's WebAIM's own published 2025 scan of the top one million home pages (webaim.org/projects/million), not an estimate. It's a widely-cited, primary-source figure, not a fabricated statistic.

Does fixing accessibility slow down future feature development?

The opposite, once it's in the design system. Fixing accessibility ad-hoc on every new page is slow; fixing it once in shared components (buttons, forms, nav) means every future feature inherits compliance automatically.

What happens if we ignore this?

UsableNet's 2025 year-end report counted over 5,000 US digital-accessibility lawsuits filed in that year alone — real legal exposure, not a hypothetical risk, on top of the roughly 1-in-4 US adults the CDC reports living with a disability who are locked out of a non-compliant site.

Same problem, different business?

We'll send the architecture and a realistic timeline for your version of this — no obligation.

Request a blueprint