Accessibility case studies show how a real website moves from failing to conforming with WCAG 2.1 AA. Each one follows the same arc — problem, audit, manual remediation, outcome — so you can see exactly what fixing a site involves and what results to expect from hands-on work rather than an overlay.
Why we publish case studies
Trust in accessibility work is earned through proof, not promises. Anyone can claim “ADA compliant.” A case study shows the actual barriers a site had, the testing that surfaced them, the fixes made in the code, and the verified result. It’s the difference between a sales pitch and evidence.
It also reflects how Curbcut works. We do manual remediation — real edits to your HTML, CSS, ARIA, and templates — tested with assistive technology. We are explicitly anti-overlay, because accessibility overlays don’t ensure ADA compliance and frequently sit on sites that still get sued. A case study makes that distinction concrete.
Note on these case studies: The studies below use clearly-labeled placeholders (
[CLIENT],[RESULT]) while we finalize client permissions. We do not publish invented client names or fabricated metrics. As approved engagements go live, each placeholder will be replaced with verified before-and-after data.
How to read each case study
Every Curbcut case study follows the same four-part structure so you can compare them fairly:
- Problem — the business context and the access barriers real users hit.
- Audit — what our accessibility audit found, mapped to specific WCAG success criteria.
- Remediation — the manual code-level fixes, by hand, in the codebase.
- Outcome — the verified result after re-testing with screen readers and keyboard.
The framework underneath is POUR — content must be Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. Most failures map cleanly to one of those four principles, which is how we keep large remediations organized.
Case study template: [CLIENT] — Ecommerce store
Problem. [CLIENT], a small online retailer, learned their checkout was unusable for shoppers using a screen reader. Keyboard users couldn’t reach the “Add to cart” button, and several product images had no alt text. The risk wasn’t only lost sales — thousands of ADA web lawsuits are filed each year, and ecommerce is among the most-targeted sectors by serial plaintiffs.
Audit. A manual accessibility test found failures across all four POUR principles:
| WCAG criterion | Issue found | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1.1 Non-text Content | Product images missing alt text | Perceivable |
| 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) | Sale prices below the 4.5:1 color contrast ratio | Perceivable |
| 2.1.1 Keyboard | Cart button unreachable by keyboard navigation | Operable |
| 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions | Checkout form inputs unlabeled | Understandable |
| 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value | Custom dropdown missing ARIA roles | Robust |
Remediation. We wrote descriptive alt text for product imagery, adjusted brand colors to meet contrast minimums, fixed the focus order so the keyboard reaches every control, added programmatic labels to checkout fields, and corrected the custom widget’s ARIA. Every change was made in the theme code — no overlay.
Outcome. [RESULT] — verified with NVDA, JAWS, and VoiceOver, plus a full keyboard-only pass. The store now conforms to WCAG 2.1 AA, and the fixes are documented for good-faith evidence.
Case study template: [CLIENT] — Service business website
Problem. [CLIENT], a local service provider, received an ADA demand letter citing an inaccessible contact form and navigation. They had installed an overlay widget the year before and assumed it covered them. It didn’t.
Audit. Our audit confirmed the overlay had not fixed the underlying code. Headings were out of order, the mobile menu was a keyboard trap, and form errors were announced to no one. These are exactly the failures that overlays routinely miss.
Remediation. We rebuilt the heading structure and landmarks for logical screen-reader navigation, replaced the broken menu with an accessible pattern, and wired up accessible form error messaging that assistive technology announces. The overlay was removed.
Outcome. [RESULT] — zero blocking WCAG 2.1 AA errors on re-test, and an honest accessibility statement reflecting real conformance instead of an automated badge.
Case study template: [CLIENT] — Content-heavy site with PDFs
Problem. [CLIENT], an organization with hundreds of downloadable forms, had a website that scanned reasonably well but buried critical information in untagged PDFs that no screen reader could read in order.
Audit. Beyond the HTML, the audit flagged dozens of inaccessible PDFs — the kind of document failure automated scanners often under-report, which is why manual review matters.
Remediation. We tagged document structure, added reading order, supplied alternative text for embedded images, and fixed contrast in templated layouts. For ongoing governance, we set up accessibility monitoring so new uploads don’t quietly regress.
Outcome. [RESULT] — key documents made accessible and a maintenance process in place so conformance holds over time.
What outcomes you can realistically expect
Honest remediation produces honest results. Across engagements like the templates above, the pattern is consistent:
- Blocking errors eliminated. Missing alt text, low contrast, unlabeled forms, and keyboard traps are removed, not masked.
- Assistive technology works. Pages are verified with real screen readers (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver) and keyboard-only navigation, not just an automated checker.
- Documented good faith. You get a record of what was found and fixed — useful if a demand letter or lawsuit ever lands.
- Reduced exposure. A genuinely accessible site is far harder for a serial plaintiff to target than one relying on a widget.
What we won’t promise is “lawsuit-proof.” No vendor can guarantee that, and anyone who does should raise a flag. This page is informational, not legal advice — for your specific risk, talk to an attorney.
The standards behind the work
Curbcut remediates to WCAG 2.1 AA, the technical standard U.S. courts and the DOJ treat as the practical benchmark for ADA Title III web accessibility. Federal agencies and their contractors also follow Section 508, which references WCAG. If you need to document conformance for a buyer, we can produce a VPAT / Accessibility Conformance Report.
The criteria are organized by the POUR principles and graded across conformance levels A, AA, and AAA. For the why behind the standard, the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative and WebAIM are the authoritative references; for federal context, see Section508.gov.
See it on your own site
The fastest way to understand a case study is to run the process on your site. Start with a free accessibility scan to surface the obvious issues, or go straight to a full accessibility audit when you’re ready to scope the fix. When you’ve seen what’s broken, our remediation team fixes it by hand — and your project could be the next case study on this page.