Accessibility Training

Digital accessibility training for teams

Most accessibility problems repeat because nobody is sure whose job they are. Design assumes development will handle it, development assumes QA will catch it, QA assumes it was specified. Our training fixes that: each role learns the part they own, on your real product, mapped to the WCAG and Section 508 criteria your work is measured against.

Our accessibility training courses

Six courses, each built for a specific audience. Most teams start with one and add others as accessibility moves through the organisation.

Training for developers

Semantic structure, keyboard behaviour, focus management, ARIA, form handling, and interactive components, tied to the WCAG success criteria each decision maps to.

Training for designers

Contrast, focus visibility, component states, error messaging, and navigation logic, so accessibility debt never reaches the backlog.

Training for QA and testing teams

Keyboard-only testing, focus validation, common failure patterns, and how to write a finding against a criterion without over-reporting.

Training for product and content teams

Headings and reading order, link and button text, alternative text, captions, and accessible documents.

Hands-on workshop on your product

A working session where the team tests your real pages, components, and flows with us, instead of practising on examples.

Cross-functional alignment session

Design, development, QA, and product in one room, agreeing the shared rules and who owns what.

How the training is delivered

Training is live and instructor-led, delivered remotely or on-site, and it runs on your own product — your pages, your components, your workflows — rather than on abstract examples. Sessions are structured so the team can apply what it learned the same week.

Training can also be woven into ongoing design and development work, so the patterns are reinforced as features ship rather than taught once and forgotten.

The hands-on workshop, in practice

Teams rarely struggle because they lack awareness. They struggle because accessibility decisions happen inside real constraints: deadlines, design systems, legacy components, and tickets that are already scoped. A workshop meets the work where it is.

In a session we review your real interface patterns, run the checks live, and walk through what good looks like on your own screens — keyboard navigation and focus behaviour, screen reader behaviour and reading order, forms and errors, semantic structure, and interactive components such as menus, modals and tabs. Your team leaves with repeatable testing steps it can run without us, and fix direction specific enough that a developer can act on it.

Why role-based training beats one generic session

Generic accessibility training gives everyone the same rulebook, and most of it does not apply to the person reading it. Developers sit through design guidance, designers sit through ARIA, and nobody leaves knowing which part they own.

Splitting by role fixes relevance and ownership at once: designers prevent issues where they are cheapest to fix, developers implement consistently against specific criteria, QA catches what tools miss and reports it in a form developers can act on, and product and content stop introducing barriers through copy, media and documents. When each role knows its boundary, the same issue stops being rediscovered three sprints later by a different team.

Standards the training is mapped to

  • WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, Level A and AA — the technical criteria behind ADA expectations and most enterprise requirements.
  • Section 508, measured against WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA, the version the Revised 508 Standards incorporate, for federal work and vendors selling into government.
  • Assistive technology behaviour — how screen readers, keyboard-only use, and magnification actually interact with what your team builds.

What your team can do afterwards

  • Test a page or component without waiting for an audit, using keyboard, screen reader and structure checks the team can repeat.
  • Write a finding that names the criterion, the impact and the fix, so tickets stop bouncing between roles.
  • Recognise the failure patterns that generate most audit findings, before they ship.
  • Apply one shared set of accessibility rules across design, development and QA.
  • Hold accessibility steady through releases instead of rebuilding it after every audit.
Schedule a training consult

Trusted by leading brands

We are proud of our customers

Common questions about accessibility training

How do we choose which course our team needs?
Tell us what the team builds and what is going wrong. Recurring audit findings in code point to the developer course; issues that keep arriving from design point to the designer course; tickets bouncing between roles point to a cross-functional session. We recommend the sequence in the consult rather than selling the whole catalogue.
Who should attend accessibility training?
Anyone whose decisions reach the interface: developers, designers, QA, product managers, and content authors. Each group needs a different slice, which is why the courses are split by role.
How is this different from a recorded course?
A recorded course teaches the rules. A live session applies them to your product — your components, your patterns, your open tickets — and the team leaves having done the work rather than watched it.
Does training guarantee compliance?
No, and any provider promising that is overselling. Training changes how your team works, which is what keeps a product accessible between audits. Conformance is still established by testing, which is what a WCAG audit is for.
Can we train only developers, or only designers?
Yes. Most engagements start with a single role, usually developers or QA, and expand once the value is visible. A cross-functional session is worth adding when the same issue keeps moving between teams.
Is the training WCAG or Section 508 focused?
Both, and we set the target before the session. WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 AA cover most private-sector and enterprise obligations; Section 508 work is taught against WCAG 2.0 A and AA, which is what the Revised 508 Standards incorporate.
Can automated tools replace team training?
No. Automated checks find a minority of issues and none of the judgement calls: whether focus order makes sense, whether an error is announced, whether a custom component can be operated at all. Tools help a trained team move faster; they do not substitute for one.
How soon will we see a difference?
The clearest early signal is ticket quality: findings arrive with the criterion, the impact and reproduction steps, and fewer issues bounce back between design, development and QA. Recurring audit findings drop over the following release cycles.

Who does this work

David LoPresti

Founder and CEO, ADA Compliance Professionals

David LoPresti's work centers on translating WCAG and Section 508 requirements into practical implementation and verification processes, and that is the same material these sessions teach. Your developers, designers, QA, and content teams work through the criteria against your own interfaces and components, so what they learn applies to the release they ship next.

Train your team to build accessible products

Tell us who needs training, what they are building, and which standard you are held to — we will recommend the format and the sequence.

Schedule a consult (opens in new tab)