Accessibility testing for organisations whose websites, apps and portals must work for people with disability. PinnacleQM tests against WCAG 2.2 AA and gives developers clear, prioritised fixes.
30+years of international
IT experience
Organisations face legal, reputational and procurement risk when services fail standards, and these failures happen in public.
PinnacleQM combines automated scanning with manual testing using keyboards and assistive technologies, assessed against WCAG 2.2 AA. Findings are prioritised by user impact with practical guidance for fixing them. Developers know exactly what to fix.
Automated tools find only part of the problem. We combine tools with expert manual testing to show how real users experience your service.
Tested with tools and assistive technology.
Manual testing with assistive technologies reveals barriers that automated tools miss. Findings describe what the barrier means for users.
Findings map to WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria, so compliance is clear. Reports show exactly which requirement each issue breaches.
Issues are ranked by user impact, so developers fix the worst barriers first. High-impact barriers are fixed before minor ones.
Accessibility is tested during delivery, not audited after launch. Fixing issues during delivery costs far less.
Automated scans in regression stop fixed issues coming back. Every release keeps its accessibility gains.
Clear reports support accessibility statements and procurement obligations. Evidence is ready when buyers and regulators ask.
From design review to regression, accessibility built into delivery.
We review designs, components and content early, covering contrast, structure, focus order and plain language, so designers fix barriers before anything is built and costly rework after development is avoided.
We run automated scans across pages and journeys to find common issues quickly and consistently at scale, then group results so teams fix repeated patterns rather than one instance at a time.
Specialists test key journeys using keyboard-only navigation and assistive technologies, assessing how real users experience forms, navigation and dynamic content. We record exactly where each journey breaks down for users.
We test native and web apps on mobile devices using platform accessibility features, including screen readers, zoom and touch target sizes, and report mobile-specific barriers separately from web findings for clarity.
Reports map each issue to WCAG success criteria, rate user impact and give practical remediation guidance for developers and content authors. Issues are grouped by component so fixes scale across pages.
We add accessibility checks to regular regression and release gates, so new changes cannot quietly reintroduce barriers and accessibility gains are kept from one release to the next, with trends reported.
A practical cycle that moves from finding barriers to fixing them, then preventing them, so accessibility becomes part of every release rather than a one-off audit.
Agree journeys, platforms, standard and conformance target with stakeholders. Priorities are agreed with product owners.
Run automated scans to find common issues across pages and apps. Results are triaged to remove false positives.
Perform manual and assistive technology testing of key user journeys. Each journey is tested end to end.
Deliver prioritised findings mapped to WCAG with remediation guidance. Findings are grouped for efficient fixing.
Retest fixes and add accessibility checks to regression and release gates. Accessibility is protected in future releases.
A state transport department paying around $1 million a year in penalties had every defect tested, fixed and retested, and no longer incurs penalties.
Read more
A state health integration re-platforming was delivered by 7 testers in 12 months against competitor estimates of 40 to 46 testers over 36 months.
Read more
Enginuity as a service and a team of 12 replaced a 125-person offshore regression team across a Big 4 bank's end-to-end lending systems.
Read more
7 min read
Why business acceptance evidence, not test execution counts, should decide go-live, and how to gather it without draining business teams.
7 min read
The evidence, residual risks and conditions a credible go-live recommendation must include for decision-makers to rely on it.
7 min read
What independence adds to testing on multi-vendor programmes, what it does not, and the signs a programme needs it.
Tell us about the website, app or portal you need tested and your target standard. We will outline an accessibility test approach, the journeys to cover and a realistic timeline.
Mention the service, platforms and your accessibility target.
