For accessibility consultancies
You are the reason limena refuses to claim conformance on automation alone. This exists so your hours go to judgment instead of sweeping for contrast errors.
Where the 56 criteria landed
- 30machine-verifiedDeterministic checks, re-run every release.
- 18your verdictReading order, meaning, plain language, context.
- 8not evaluatedBlocked or out of scope. Recorded honestly.
Your expertise is being spent on the wrong half.
A manual audit still starts with hours of mechanical checking before anyone reaches a question that actually needs a specialist.
The sweep eats the budget
A fixed-fee audit spends its first day on contrast ratios and missing labels. That is the cheapest part of your expertise and the most expensive way to buy it.
Your verdict leaves no trace
You made a hundred judgment calls. The deliverable records the conclusions, not who decided what, so none of it is defensible a year later.
Tools compete with you dishonestly
Products that claim a clean pass across all of WCAG are overstating what automation can know, and it undercuts the case for hiring a specialist at all.
01 · Only the judgment calls
You get a queue, not a report to read.
limena clears the deterministic criteria and hands you only what needs a human. Each item arrives with what automation already established, so you are not re-deriving context.
Your verdict is attributed to you by name and credential, which is what makes the conformance claim defensible later.
What automation established
The field has an associated error message, it is programmatically linked, and it is announced on submit. The mechanical part of 3.3.1 is satisfied.
"Error: invalid input in field 3."
Why it is yours
Whether that wording lets someone actually recover is a judgment call. limena will not pass it, and will not fail it, without you.
02 · Attribution
The expertise is yours, so the report says so.
A VPAT generated from live results, white-labelled to your practice, stating exactly which criteria were machine-verified and which you assessed personally.
Clients are buying your sign-off. The document should make that unambiguous.
- 1.4.3Contrast (Minimum)Measured across every text nodeAUTOMATED
- 1.3.2Meaningful SequenceReading order confirmed with a screen readerM. KERR
- 3.3.1Error IdentificationWording assessed as insufficient, remediatedM. KERR
- 1.4.13Content on Hover or FocusOut of scope for this engagementNOT EVAL
Assessed by M. Kerr, CPACC. Method stated per criterion, so a reviewer knows precisely what the claim rests on.
03 · The audit stops being terminal
You find out when your sign-off stops being true.
Today an audit ends and you hear nothing until the client commissions another one. limena keeps watching, and tells you when a criterion you assessed has regressed.
That protects your name on the report, and it turns a one-off audit into an ongoing relationship.
- 1.4.3 · contrast still holdingstable
- 2.1.1 · keyboard traversal still holdingstable
- 3.3.1 · error copy reverted in v4.2regressed
- 1.3.2 · reading order changed on 6 pagesre-check
Two criteria you personally signed off have drifted. That is a conversation with the client, and a reason to be re-engaged.
Automation handles the volume. You keep the judgment.
- The mechanical criteria cleared before you start, so a fixed fee buys more of your expertise.
- Every verdict recorded against the criterion with your name and credential, which is what makes it defensible.
- Reports white-labelled to your practice, stating method per criterion rather than implying a clean automated pass.
- Notification when a criterion you signed off regresses, which protects your name and creates a reason to re-engage.
Bring an engagement you are mid-way through.
We will show you how much of it limena would have cleared before you opened the file, and what would have been left for you.