An audit-ready path to EU accessibility compliance
An audit-ready path to EU
accessibility compliance
An audit-ready path to EU
accessibility compliance
OVERVIEW
I.
Finding every gap before
it becomes a blocker
Finding every gap before
it becomes a blocker
Finding every gap before
it becomes a blocker
SmartTID is a workforce time-registration
platform spanning three surfaces — web portal,
web terminal, and phone app — used
by companies to track clock-ins, manage
collective agreements, and sync with payroll
and ERP systems. With European Accessibility
Act enforcement tightening across the EU,
SmartTID needed to know exactly
where its product stood against WCAG 2.1/2.2
and EN 301 549 across all three surfaces —
a precise, standard-by-standard map of where
each interface fell short, so those places could
be fixed.
SmartTID is a workforce time-registration platform
spanning three surfaces — web portal, web
terminal, and phone app — used by companies
to track clock-ins, manage collective agreements,
and sync with payroll and ERP systems.
With European Accessibility Act enforcement
tightening across the EU, SmartTID needed to know
exactly where its product stood against
WCAG 2.1/2.2 and EN 301 549 across all three
surfaces — a precise, standard-by-standard map
of where each interface fell short, so those places
could be fixed.
SmartTID is a workforce time-registration
platform spanning three surfaces —
web portal, web terminal, and phone app —
used by companies to track clock-ins,
manage collective agreements, and sync
with payroll and ERP systems.
With European Accessibility Act
enforcement tightening across the EU,
SmartTID needed to know exactly
where its product stood against
WCAG 2.1/2.2 and EN 301 549 across all
three surfaces — a precise, standard-by-
standard map of where each interface fell
short, so those places could be fixed.
SmartTID is a workforce time-registration platform
spanning three surfaces — web portal, web terminal,
and phone app — used by companies to track
clock-ins, manage collective agreements, and sync
with payroll and ERP systems. With European
Accessibility Act enforcement tightening across
the EU, SmartTID needed to know exactly
where its product stood against WCAG 2.1/2.2
and EN 301 549 across all three surfaces —
a precise, standard-by-standard map of where each
interface fell short, so those places could be fixed.
3
210
Surfaces audited — web portal, web terminal,
and mobile app, each evaluated independently
against WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549
Surfaces audited — web portal, web
terminal, and mobile app, each
evaluated independently against
WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549
Surfaces audited —
web portal, web terminal,
and mobile app,
each evaluated
independently against
WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2,
and EN 301 549
Surfaces audited — web portal,
web terminal, and mobile app,
each evaluated independently against
WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549
Criteria evaluated per surface
Criteria evaluated per surface
Criteria evaluated
per surface
OUR APPROACH
ii.
Every criterion checked
and scored
A combined automated and manual audit,
evaluating 210 success criteria across WCAG 2.1,
WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549, Levels A and AA.
A combined automated and manual audit,
evaluating 210 success criteria across
WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549,
Levels A and AA.
A combined automated and manual audit,
evaluating 210 success criteria across WCAG 2.1,
WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549, Levels A and AA.
Automated scanning across every
in-scope route
Automated scanning
across every
in-scope route
Automated scanning across
every in-scope route
Automated scanning across every
in-scope route
BrowserStack Accessibility covered the full route set,
catching structural and markup-level issues at scale.
BrowserStack Accessibility covered
the full route set, catching structural
and markup-level issues at scale.
BrowserStack Accessibility covered the full
route set, catching structural and markup-
level issues at scale.
BrowserStack Accessibility covered the full
route set, catching structural and markup-
level issues at scale.
Manual inspection where
automation can't reach
Manual inspection where
automation can't reach
Manual inspection
where automation can't reach
Manual inspection
where automation can't reach
Manual review, keyboard-only testing,
and screen-reader testing with VoiceOver, alongside
color-contrast verification, reflow at 320 CSS pixels,
and 200% browser zoom.
Manual review, keyboard-only
testing, and screen-reader testing
with VoiceOver, alongside color-
contrast verification, reflow at 320 CSS
pixels, and 200% browser zoom.
Manual review, keyboard-only testing,
and screen-reader testing with VoiceOver,
alongside color-contrast verification, reflow
at 320 CSS pixels, and 200% browser zoom.
Manual review, keyboard-only testing,
and screen-reader testing with VoiceOver,
alongside color-contrast verification, reflow
at 320 CSS pixels, and 200% browser zoom.
Manual review filled the gaps
automation leaves behind
Manual review filled
the gaps automation
leaves behind
Manual review filled the gaps
automation leaves behind
Manual review filled the gaps
automation leaves behind
Issues like a data table built from generic layout
markup, a missing page-language attribute,
or an ambiguous image label rarely surface through
automated scanning; they show up when
the interface is tested by hand.
Issues like a data table built from
generic layout markup, a missing page-
language attribute, or an ambiguous
image label rarely surface through
automated scanning; they show up
when the interface is tested by hand.
Issues like a data table built from generic
layout markup, a missing page-language
attribute, or an ambiguous image label rarely
surface through automated scanning;
they show up when the interface
is tested by hand.
Issues like a data table built from generic
layout markup, a missing page-language
attribute, or an ambiguous image label rarely
surface through automated scanning;
they show up when the interface
is tested by hand.
Every finding classified by severity, not just logged
Every finding classified by severity,
not just logged
Every finding classified
by severity, not just logged
Every finding classified
by severity, not just logged
Each issue was mapped to its specific criterion, reproduced, and rated Critical,
Major, or Minor based on its impact on end-users and its potential regulatory
or legal risk — so fixes could be prioritized by real-world consequence rather
than the order they appear in the standard.
Each issue was mapped to its specific criterion, reproduced,
and rated Critical, Major, or Minor based on its impact on end-
users and its potential regulatory or legal risk — so fixes could
be prioritized by real-world consequence rather than the order
they appear in the standard.
Each issue was mapped to its specific
criterion, reproduced, and rated Critical,
Major, or Minor based on its impact on end-
users and its potential regulatory or legal
risk — so fixes could be prioritized by real-
world consequence rather than the order
they appear in the standard.
Each issue was mapped to its specific
criterion, reproduced, and rated Critical,
Major, or Minor based on its impact on end-
users and its potential regulatory or legal risk
— so fixes could be prioritized by real-world
consequence rather than the order they
appear in the standard.
A remediation roadmap accompanied the findings
A remediation roadmap
accompanied the findings
A remediation roadmap
accompanied the findings
A remediation roadmap
accompanied the findings
Alongside the scored results, SmartTID received clear, actionable guidance on how
to fix each issue — turning the audit from a list of problems into a practical starting
point for the engineering team.
Alongside the scored results, SmartTID received clear,
actionable guidance on how to fix each issue — turning
the audit from a list of problems into a practical starting point
for the engineering team.
Alongside the scored results, SmartTID
received clear, actionable guidance
on how to fix each issue — turning the audit
from a list of problems into a practical
starting point for the engineering team.
Alongside the scored results, SmartTID
received clear, actionable guidance
on how to fix each issue — turning the audit
from a list of problems into a practical
starting point for the engineering team.
RESULTS
iii.
A prioritized fix list,
not a general sense of trouble
A prioritized fix list,
not a general sense of trouble
3
Surfaces audited — web portal, web terminal, and mobile app were each
evaluated independently, giving SmartTID a complete picture across every
environment its users rely on rather than a single-surface snapshot
that leaves the rest of the product unaccounted for.
Surfaces audited — web portal, web terminal, and mobile
app were each evaluated independently, giving SmartTID
a complete picture across every environment its users
rely on rather than a single-surface snapshot
that leaves the rest of the product unaccounted for.
Surfaces audited — web portal,
web terminal, and mobile app
were each evaluated independently,
giving SmartTID a complete picture
across every environment its users rely
on rather than a single-surface snapshot
that leaves the rest of the product
unaccounted for.
Surfaces audited — web portal, web
terminal, and mobile app were each
evaluated independently, giving SmartTID
a complete picture across every
environment its users rely on rather
than a single-surface snapshot that leaves
the rest of the product unaccounted for.
210
Criteria evaluated per surface — every success criterion across WCAG 2.1,
WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549 was checked, reproduced, and scored on each
of the three surfaces, so no gap could hide behind an untested route
or an assumption carried over from another part of the product.
Criteria evaluated per surface — every success criterion
across WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549
was checked, reproduced, and scored on each
of the three surfaces, so no gap could hide behind
an untested route or an assumption carried over
from another part of the product.
Criteria evaluated per surface —
every success criterion across WCAG 2.1,
WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549 was checked,
reproduced, and scored on each
of the three surfaces, so no gap
could hide behind an untested route
or an assumption carried over
from another part of the product.
Criteria evaluated per surface —
every success criterion across
WCAG 2.1, WCAG 2.2, and EN 301 549
was checked, reproduced, and scored
on each of the three surfaces, so no gap
could hide behind an untested route
or an assumption carried over
from another part of the product.
1
Remediation roadmap delivered alongside the audit — clear, actionable
instructions on how to fix each identified issue, giving engineering
a practical starting point rather than a report to interpret on its own.
Remediation roadmap delivered alongside the audit —
clear, actionable instructions on how to fix each
identified issue, giving engineering a practical starting
point rather than a report to interpret on its own.
Remediation roadmap delivered
alongside the audit — clear, actionable
instructions on how to fix each identified
issue, giving engineering a practical
starting point rather than a report
to interpret on its own.
Remediation roadmap delivered alongside
the audit — clear, actionable instructions
on how to fix each identified issue, giving
engineering a practical starting point
rather than a report to interpret
on its own.
Contact
Tell us what you're working on.
We'll respond
within one business day.
You've submitted recently
We'll review your message and respond
within one business day.
