Measured,
not asserted.

Performance decays by default. A site launches fast, then acquires an analytics tag, a chat widget, a consent banner, a marketing pixel and a font nobody audited, each added by someone with a good reason. No single addition is the problem and the site is slow anyway. A budget enforced on every deploy is what makes that visible while it is still cheap to fix.

Accessibility has a similar problem with a worse ending. Automated tools catch something like a third of real defects — they can tell you an image lacks alt text, but not that the alt text is useless, that focus order jumps around the page, or that a custom dropdown is invisible to a screen reader. The remaining two thirds need a keyboard and assistive technology, so that is how we test.

This also has a legal dimension in the EU that did not exist a few years ago, and public sector bodies and many businesses now carry obligations rather than aspirations. We would rather build to a conformance target and test against it than describe a site as accessible because a scanner returned a high number.

Both are deliverable as remediation on a site you already have. You get findings ordered by impact and effort, with the evidence attached, and you can hand that to any developer including your own.

What you get

• Core Web Vitals measured on real page loads, not only in the lab
• A performance budget enforced in the deployment pipeline
• WCAG 2.2 AA audit using keyboard and screen reader
• Prioritised remediation list with evidence per finding
• Re-test after fixes so the result is verified rather than assumed

Not included

• Copywriting and photography
• Paid media and ad management
• Ongoing content updates unless retained