AliveCommerce / What we do / Web and revenue
Accessibility obligations are among the few digital deadlines that genuinely don't move. The trap is treating it as a one-time fix — compliance achieved on a Friday starts degrading the next time someone publishes a page.
Scoped and priced up front. Exclusions written as explicitly as inclusions.
Against the standard that applies to your organisation type and size, with issues ranked by severity and by effort rather than listed flat.
Structural issues first — semantics, focus management, keyboard access, contrast — because they account for most real barriers and most exposure.
Frequently the largest part of the work and the part scoped last. Often cheaper to replace documents with accessible pages.
Most regression comes from content, not code. Four trained publishers prevent more issues than any remediation sprint fixes.
Checks in the publishing workflow and periodic re-testing, so the next audit isn't a repeat of this one.
Drafted honestly, including known issues, which is what a credible statement looks like.
In this order, because doing them out of order is how these go wrong.
Obligations differ by organisation type, size and jurisdiction. This determines everything downstream and is frequently assumed wrongly.
Automated tools catch roughly a third of issues and produce false positives. Anyone selling full compliance from a scan is overstating it.
Keyboard access, focus, semantics and contrast. Some things are legally urgent and some are cosmetic; conflating them wastes money.
The step that determines whether compliance survives. It's also the cheapest part of the engagement.
Tell us what's actually happening and we'll say which part of this applies — or that a different approach fits better, or that you don't need us yet. That last answer is more common than you'd expect.
Chosen on fit. We take no commission or referral fee from any of them.
Some of this work never really ends. When that's true, we'll say so rather than selling you a project that restarts in three years.
Accessibility maintained as the site changes rather than achieved once and lost. Part of owning the web layer continuously.
See DARWINWhere the organisation needs broader documentation and training discipline, not just publisher training.
See LiquidIQDepends on organisation type, size and jurisdiction. In Ontario, AODA references WCAG at a specified level and requirements differ across sectors. The audit establishes this first.
Automated tools catch about a third of issues. They're a useful first pass and not a conformance assessment.
Frequently the largest single problem and the most often overlooked. Documents published on a site are in scope, and a large back-catalogue can exceed the site itself.
Because content kept being published. This is the most common story in the category, and it's why training editors matters more than the remediation sprint.
No qualification questionnaire. No nurture sequence. A person reads it and replies within a business day — and tells you plainly if we're not the right fit.
Prefer to talk first? 416-639-5876 · [email protected]
Three fields. We'll ask the rest on the call.
Articles are matched by tag; services, capabilities and programs are curated.
We'll tell you roughly what this costs, how long it takes, and whether it's worth doing at all — including when the honest answer is that you don't need us.
Start the Conversation