About tuaccesible

Why an automated scan isn't enough

An automated tool crawls your site in seconds and returns a reassuring report. It catches low contrast and images with no alt text. Those findings are real, and they matter.

What it doesn't find is what actually breaks the experience:

• The focus that vanishes when a menu opens.
• The form that flags an error in red without announcing it.
• The dropdown that opens and can't be closed from the keyboard.

Those are the barriers that lock someone out of your product. They're also the ones that turn into legal complaints: a demand letter in the United States, a regulator's file in Europe. And they only show up when someone uses the product, not when a tool scans it.

How we audit

We combine automated tools with a full manual review of the real product: keyboard navigation, screen readers, and zoom. Automated tools tell us where to look. Manual testing is what finds the problems that matter.

The difference is who does that part. At tuaccesible it's María Pía, who has used a screen reader as her primary interface for 13 years. Plenty of firms bring in screen reader users for a testing session and hand the notes to someone else to classify against the standard. Here the person who runs the test and the person who writes the finding are the same person, so nothing gets lost translating what someone hit into which criterion it fails.

No report ships on a single reading

Every audit and every workshop goes through a second review before it reaches you. One person audits, another checks the findings and the prioritization. It's slower, and that's deliberate: a criterion applied wrongly in a conformance report propagates into every remediation plan you build on top of it.

tuaccesible came out of a team that met working at the DALAT Foundation. The habit of reviewing in pairs came with us.

Come back later and you don't start from scratch. We keep the report and the working material from every project, so if you write again months or years on, we already know your product. The review picks up from there instead of rebuilding it all.

We work under a written contract, not just a quote: scope and deliverables are set down before anything starts, and we sign your NDA if your company needs one.

How small we are, and why

There are two of us. Small on purpose, not because we're waiting to grow: what we sell can't be subcontracted without losing the one thing that makes it different. That sets our capacity, and we'd rather say so up front. If your deadline doesn't fit, you'll hear it in our first reply instead of finding out when we run late.

Recent work

A full audit of a web product and its browser extension, on web and Windows 11, against WCAG 2.2 Level AA, EN 301 549, and the European Accessibility Act. Manual evaluation with NVDA and keyboard-only navigation.

The main finding wasn't a long list of different problems. It was the same one, screen after screen, in a component reused across the whole product. That changes your job completely: not a hundred fixes, one fix. It's also why we prioritize by impact rather than by rule count, because counting findings would have produced an alarming number and a wrong idea of the effort.

The delivery included:

• A 29-page accessibility review report, with findings prioritized by severity.
• Cognitive accessibility (COGA) recommendations.
• A draft accessibility statement in Spanish and English.

Two people from the team ran the audit. We publish a client's name only with their express permission; until we have it, we tell you about the work and not the name.

Who does the auditing

María Pía covers the tools, the experience and the certifications on Who audits your site.

Before you hire anyone

Tell us what you need audited and on what timeline. We'll tell you where to start, even if you don't end up hiring anyone.

Email us or see the full service details.