Services · Formal deliverables

A Developer Ticket Pack Your Sprint Board Can Import

For the engineering lead who'd rather import the findings than spend a week retyping a PDF into Jira.

What We Keep Finding

In practice, the last mile is where audits go to die. The report lands, somebody spends a week copying findings into the tracker, and detail falls out on the way. A quarter later half the tickets read "fix accessibility issue" with nothing to reproduce and no way to verify. The finding was solid. The ticket was not.

We would rather do that transcription once, properly. Every finding becomes one issue. The reproduction steps come out of the real test session and name the browser and screen reader the failure was found on. A screen-reader bug reproduces on a combination rather than on a product, and "works for me in VoiceOver" is how a real ticket gets closed wrongly. The failing element is pinned. The acceptance criteria say what fixed looks like and how a reviewer checks it. And each issue links to the matching guide in our library of 432 fixes.

The field that takes the most care is the smallest one, which is the criterion the ticket cites. Three of the commonest findings get filed under the wrong rule, and a wrong rule sends a developer off to the wrong guide. A visible label sitting next to a field it was never wired to passes 3.3.2 and fails 1.3.1, so a ticket citing 3.3.2 asks for a label that is already on the screen. An error the page announces but never writes down is 3.3.1, and an error the page writes down but never announces is 4.1.3, and they need opposite fixes. And 2.4.11 asks only that focus is not entirely hidden, so a partly covered focus ring passes at AA and the stricter version of that requirement lives at AAA where nobody is being asked to meet it. Cite the right one and the acceptance test tests the right thing.

What We Check

Turn each finding into one issue, with a summary a sprint board can hold in a row
Write reproduction steps from the tester's session, naming the browser and screen reader used
Cite the criterion the finding actually fails, which is the field that decides everything downstream
Attach acceptance criteria, so what fixed looks like and how a reviewer verifies it
Link every issue to its fix guide, from our library of 432
Deliver it as a CSV your Jira or GitHub import already understands, with labels and severities set

What You Get

Every service on this site runs the same three-pass engine: an automated scan, an expert review of all 55 WCAG 2.2 A and AA rules, and a hands-on session with a professional blind screen-reader user. You get one report with every finding screenshotted, ranked by user impact, and linked to its fix. Your team fixes, we verify: the re-audit is half price within 3 months.

The format is not a mystery either. Read the sample report before you spend anything.

The Honest Limit

One honest limit, plus a word about the severities. The pack is careful transcription and engineering framing rather than new testing, so it finds nothing the audit did not, and it is priced per pack on top of that audit. The severity on each ticket is ours, not the standard's, because WCAG grades a criterion pass or fail and says nothing at all about how much a failure hurts. Sort your board by it. Do not report it upward as though the standard said it. Email us which tracker you use and you will get a number, not a demo.

What It Costs

Rapid Audit: $499, up to 10 pages you pick, report in 5 business days. Standard Audit: $1,499, up to 25 pages in 10 business days. Flat rates, no discovery calls, and a real blind screen-reader user on every engagement. Pick your pages. We bring the humans.

Order your audit Run the free scan first

Worth Reading Next

Related on this site

Guides, checklists, tools, and terms that go with this service.