Design Accessibility Services
A missing focus state is a five-minute edit in a design file. The same issue after development means a developer rewrites working code. We review your designs and design system against WCAG, so your team can ship interfaces that work better for screen reader, keyboard, and voice control users from the first release.
Trusted by organizations building more accessible digital experiences.
Why does accessibility belong in the design phase?
Contrast ratios, focus order, touch target size, and error messaging are all design decisions. Each one either supports or blocks someone using assistive technology, and each one is set long before front-end code exists. Handling them early is cheaper and simpler. A design fix costs a file edit. The same fix after launch costs code changes, retesting, and a release.
Lower remediation cost — Issues resolved before they reach a codebase.
Barriers prevented, not patched — Patterns that exclude keyboard or screen reader users are caught before they ship.
Design system consistency — One source component fixed, every screen improved.
Fewer surprises at audit — Design already measured against the criteria the audit will use.
What's Included?
Design accessibility audit
Current mockups or a live product are reviewed criterion by criterion against WCAG.
Design team enablement
Accessible design practices through sessions and checklists tailored to the components and design system your design team uses.
Design system integration
Shared components are corrected at the source, so the fix reaches every screen built from them.
Annotated handoff documentation
ARIA roles, focus order, and alt text intent are documented where developers will actually read them.
Interaction and prototype specification
Tab order, focus management in overlays, and dynamic state changes are defined, not left to interpretation.
Accessible UI component design
Dropdowns, modals, form fields, and data tables are designed with keyboard and screen reader behavior already resolved.
All of it is delivered inside your existing design files, not as a separate document your team has to translate.
What is the difference between inclusive design and accessible design?
Inclusive design is the broader approach. It considers the full range of human diversity, including disability, age, language, environment, and temporary or situational limits. It shapes how a team thinks about who a product is for.
Accessible design is the measurable part. It removes barriers for persons with disabilities against defined criteria such as WCAG, which makes it testable and verifiable. The two are not alternatives. Captions are the classic example: an accessible design requirement for deaf users, and an inclusive benefit for anyone watching video with the sound off.
Inclusive design provides the mindset, accessible design provides the measurement, and a mature product needs both.
How do we support your design workflow?
Discovery and baseline audit
Existing designs or the live product are reviewed against WCAG, with each issue ranked by severity.
Design and prototyping reviews
Wireframes and high-fidelity mockups are checked as they are produced, while fixes are still quick edits.
Design system and component work
Shared components are audited and corrected once at the source rather than repeatedly across screens.
Annotated handoff
Designs go to development with keyboard patterns, focus management, and ARIA intent documented.
Post-build verification
Implemented screens are checked against the design intent to confirm the accessibility decisions survived the build.
What exactly gets fixed in the code?
- Sufficient color contrast
- Visible focus indicators
- Never relying on color alone
- Predictable navigation
- Consistent placement of primary actions
- Adequate touch target size
- Labeled icon buttons
- Text reflow and resizing
- Flexible containers
- Clear visual hierarchy
- Defined focus order
- Descriptive link text
- Target spacing
- Clear error messaging
- Programmatic form labels
- Focus management in modals
- Accessible data tables
A light gray label on white can look clean and still fail for anyone who cannot distinguish the two, which is why every one of these is measured, not judged by eye.
Which Standards Do We Use in Design Accessibility?
WCAG 2.2 AA
Used as the core technical framework for mapping design decisions to accessibility requirements.
ADA
Considered when assessing relevant legal requirements for digital accessibility work in the US; WCAG criteria inform the technical implementation.
EAA
Helps evaluate design decisions against the accessibility requirements for in-scope products and services in the European Union.
Section 508
Applies to ICT used by US federal agencies. Vendors selling to them are usually asked to show conformance.
EN 301 549
The European standard that maps onto WCAG and also covers software and documentation.
We document review findings at component and screen level, showing designers and developers exactly which changes to make.
Why WeAccess.ai for Design Accessibility Review?
| Criteria | Automated contrast tool | Post-launch audit | WeAccess.Ai design review |
|---|---|---|---|
| When issues surface | After a screen is built | After the product ships | YesIn the design file |
| Coverage | Contrast only | Comprehensive, point in time | YesComprehensive, criterion by criterion |
| Interaction and focus order | Not assessed | Assessed in code | YesSpecified before build |
| Cost to fix a finding | Code change | Code change plus retest | YesA file edit |
| Effect on future screens | None | Repeated next cycle | YesCorrected in the design system |
Many accessibility failures found in an audit were decided in a mockup months earlier.
Why choose our accessibility design team?
Design and code expertise in one team
A contrast issue in Figma and a focus bug in a component are handled by the same people, not split between vendors.
Fixes made once, at the source
Corrections land in your shared components, so the defect stops reappearing on every new screen.
Accessibility that works for everyone
Larger targets, clear hierarchy, and descriptive links make navigation easier for everyone.
Turkish, English, and German
We review interface copy in all three languages and report in the one your team works in.
Capability, not dependency
Your designers keep the patterns, annotations, and checklists after the engagement ends.
FAQ
Still have questions? View our complete FAQ section.
Both. Existing products usually begin with a baseline audit, while ongoing design work is reviewed as it is produced.
WCAG 2.2 AA is the default, since it is the level nearly every law and procurement requirement points to. Where a specific AAA criterion matters for your audience, we flag it and you decide.
Early on it costs very little; most of it is a different way of making the same decision. The expensive version is fixing the same issue in code after launch.
Yes. Enablement sessions and component checklists are part of the engagement, so your designers can apply the patterns without us on the next screen.
It constrains some choices, such as contrast and target size, but it does not dictate a visual style. Most of the work is in states, order, and labelling rather than aesthetics.
Yes. We work in Figma alongside your team, annotating components and corrections in place rather than producing a separate document.
Build digital experiences everyone can use.
See how WeAccess can help your organization manage accessibility across web, mobile, documents and media.