Web accessibility and EAA compliance for WordPress sites

It depends on the digital service provided and the company's classification under the Legislative Decree. 82/2022. A specific case-by-case assessment is required, which must be validated with dedicated legal support.

The obligation has been in effect since June 28, 2025, and oversight is operational: AgID published the technical guidelines and sanctioning regulations in 2026, and anyone can report a non-compliant site through the public portal using SPID or CIE. Legislative Decree 82/2022 provides for administrative fines from 5,000 up to 40,000 euros, and for large enterprises, up to 5 percent of turnover. The procedure is gradual: first a report and a deadline to comply, then the fine in case of persistent non-compliance. Intervening before a report always costs less than doing it after.

Real compliance requires audits on WCAG criteria, fixes to code, templates, and content, and verification with assistive technologies: specific skills that a generalist provider usually does not possess. The difference lies in the depth: I work on a few projects at a time, intervene on the causes, and document the result, whereas shortcuts (overlays, badges) leave the site non-compliant and exposed to reports.

No. The audit is a technical intervention: it analyzes the site against WCAG 2.1 AA criteria and produces priorities and a remediation plan. The classification of obligations under Legislative Decree 82/2022 remains a legal matter and must be validated with dedicated support.

I work on WCAG 2.1 Level AA criteria, the technical reference cited by European accessibility legislation and the EAA. The goal is substantial compliance, not just formal, verified on the pages and templates that matter.

No. Automatic overlays or widgets do not make a site compliant: in most cases, they do not resolve real barriers and sometimes introduce new ones for those using assistive technologies. True compliance comes from fixes to code, templates, and content, verified manually.

It depends on the number of templates, content complexity, and the level of criticality. The initial audit defines timelines and priorities, so we proceed with a progressive and sustainable adjustment rather than a single massive intervention.

Almost never. In most cases, I intervene on the existing site, with audits and progressive remediation on templates, components, and content, without blocking your operations. A rebuild is only considered when the technical foundation is not recoverable.

A site with the fixes applied, the final verification, and technical documentation of the intervention. A traceable outcome, also useful in support of the accessibility statement, where required.

The accessibility statement, where required, is prepared together: I provide the supporting technical documentation of the intervention, while the scope of obligations and the declaratory content must be validated on a legal level.

Yes. New content and updates can introduce new barriers: with the MXN-Care ongoing support service and periodic checks, the site remains compliant even after the initial adjustment.

Yes, in many cases. A clearer structure improves content understanding, usability, and the technical quality signals that search engines evaluate, with indirect benefits for ranking.