Service · Accessibility
On most sites the accessibility statement is missing, or it says “partially compliant”. The audit tells you what is missing, in what order it can be fixed, and what can go into the statement. To EN 301 549 / WCAG 2.1 AA.
Two routes
Hungarian Act LXXV of 2018 covers municipalities, public institutions and bodies performing public duties. An accessibility statement must be published, and the technical benchmark is EN 301 549, that is WCAG 2.1 AA.
Hungarian Act XVII of 2022 covers e-commerce, consumer banking and financial services, passenger transport, e-books and electronic communications. The benchmark is the same: EN 301 549 / WCAG 2.1 AA.
Machine and human
| What has to be checked | Automated check | Manual audit |
|---|---|---|
| Contrast, missing text alternatives, semantic errors | Detected | Detected |
| Keyboard navigation and focus order | Not detected | Detected |
| Focus traps | Not detected | Detected |
| A screen reader walkthrough | Not detected | Detected |
| Whether text alternatives are meaningful, not merely present | Not detected | Detected |
| Whether a form error message says what to fix | Not detected | Detected |
| Fix order and estimated effort | Not detected | Detected |
| Draft accessibility statement | Not detected | Detected |
We run the same open-source rule engine the cheap automated reports run, and we give it away for free. What you buy in the audit is the remaining two thirds: everything that only a keyboard, a screen reader and experience will surface.
What we do not sell
An overlay layers font-size and contrast switches on top of the existing page. It does not fix broken semantics, missing labels or a wrong focus order, so it does not solve a compliance problem. User organisations and most of the profession reject it, and abroad proceedings have been started specifically against sites using overlays. If someone sells a widget instead of accessibility, their other claims are hard to believe too.
Steps and prices
| Step | Net | Gross (27% VAT) | What it is for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free automated quick check | HUF 0 | HUF 0 | The address of the site is enough. It shows what the machine sees, and what it does not. |
| Quick audit | HUF 150,000–200,000 | HUF 190,500–254,000 | 1–2 days. Manual review on a sample, with a fix order and estimated effort. |
| Full audit: small, medium, large site | HUF 350,000 · 700,000 · 1,200,000 | HUF 444,500 · 889,000 · 1,524,000 | 2–10 days depending on site size. The draft statement is included. |
| Remediation | Quoted separately | – | Fixed by the same person who audited it. |
The price of the quick audit counts towards the full audit. The gross column is not a formality: public bodies and foundations often cannot reclaim VAT, so their decision is about the gross amount. The statement is an output of the audit, not a separate item.
Which standard
The market talks about WCAG 2.2 in 2026, but the benchmark for compliance is the harmonised version of EN 301 549, which requires WCAG 2.1 AA. The audit follows that. The report separately flags those WCAG 2.2 success criteria that are not yet mandatory but will be with the next standard update.
Reference
The accessible version of the village website. A public-administration environment with real case-handling content, still live today.
nyaregyhaza.hu (opens in a new tab)The Hungarian Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. An organisation where accessibility is not a compliance question but daily life for its users. The site has since been rebuilt by others, so its current state no longer reflects that work.
Both are earlier engagements, done against the WCAG version in force at the time; audits today follow EN 301 549 / WCAG 2.1 AA. SINOSZ is a lesson in itself: accessibility is not a one-off state. A rebuild or a theme change puts a site back where it was before the fixes within days. That is why re-testing is worth it, and why we hand over a findings list and a fix order rather than a certificate.
Who does it
The same person writes the findings list and then does the remediation. This work cannot be handed off: most issues are not found by a rule engine but by a keyboard, a screen reader and experience.
What we do not take on
The accessibility statement is published by the operator, about their own site. We supply evidence, a findings list and draft wording, not a certificate. That is why the report never says “the site complies with WCAG 2.1 AA”. It says which success criteria showed no findings on the sample we tested, and what the methodology and scope of that testing were. That difference matters the moment somebody relies on the statement.
The first step
The check needs the address of the site, a name and an email address so we have somewhere to send the result. We do not ask for a call. The crawl is polite: we respect robots.txt, we identify ourselves in your logs, and we never walk the whole site. We never publish the results, neither as a list nor in aggregate.
Next step
One site address, and you get what the automated check finds, plus a short manual note on what it cannot see. That is what tells us whether we have anything to do with each other.