3. Feature-by-Feature Scrutiny (Your Stated Features)
Categories:
- Table stakes (TS): customers expect it. It earns nothing, but its absence costs you.
- Differentiator (D): a real reason to choose you over the alternatives.
- Distraction (X): built but unlikely to move revenue or retention.
- Liability (L): creates support, compliance, legal or trust risk.
Some features sit in two buckets. The primary bucket comes first.
3.1 Classification table
| # | Your feature or choice | Category | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Automated WCAG 2.1 AA scanning and monitoring | TS | axe-core, WAVE, Lighthouse and Pa11y are free. Pope Tech ($25/mo), WebYes ($29/mo) and Equalize Digital ($190/yr) sell monitoring already. Every buyer expects it, and nobody pays you for it. It becomes part of a differentiator only when the output is grouped by template and fed into the evidence file (rows 3 and 4). Build on axe-core. Don't write your own rules. |
| 2 | Accessibility statement generator | TS → D only if EAA- and country-specific | The W3C generator is free, WebYes offers one free, and Equalize includes templates. A generic statement earns nothing. It becomes a differentiator if it is per country and language (German BFSG information, the French declaration, Dutch), pre-filled from real scan and manual-check data, versioned, and updated when the site changes. France fines missing information separately (up to €25k), so a live, dated statement has concrete value. |
| 3 | Prioritised fix guidance agencies hand to developers | D (if grouped by template) / TS (if per-issue) | Every scanner has "how to fix" text. The unmet need is "which 10 fixes remove most of the problems?" Grouping issues by template and component ("the product card, the cookie banner, the checkout form") turns 5,000 errors into a to-do list. Add CMS-specific notes (Shopify Liquid, WooCommerce and WordPress themes, Shopware) and one-click export to Jira, GitHub or Linear. |
| 4 | Evidence and reporting for enforcement letters | D / L | The most distinctive feature in the idea. A dated record of scans, manual checks, fixes shipped, statement versions and barrier reports is what an agency sends when a client gets a DGCCRF notice, an MLBF complaint or a German warning letter. Liability if framed as a legal defence or as "proof of compliance". Frame it as an "accessibility effort record", with a disclaimer and a "talk to your lawyer" note. Never draft the reply to the authority. |
| 5 | "Not an overlay" positioning | D | After the FTC's $1M order against accessiBe and the Overlay Fact Sheet (1,048 signatories), "we fix the source, we don't paper over it" is a credible, trust-building message to agencies and developers. Keep it factual. Don't attack named vendors. |
| 6 | Selling to Shopify and WooCommerce stores | X / L | Most small stores are exempt (under 10 staff and ≤€2M). The rest compete with overlay apps and $0–29 scanners in the app stores, and churn after the first cleanup. Selling EAA fear to exempt businesses is also a consumer-protection and reputation risk. Keep stores as a lead source for agencies, not as the paying customer. |
| 7 | Selling to web agencies | D (as a channel) | One account = 10–40 sites, an existing monthly billing relationship, and lower churn. The agency can resell a monthly "accessibility care plan". This is the only segment where the unit economics work at limited hours. |
| 8 | "EAA monitoring" as the pitch | L if it implies compliance / D if precise | "EAA monitoring" suggests the tool tells you whether you meet the EAA. It can't: automation covers 16 of 50 WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria. Say "monitoring of the automatically testable WCAG criteria, plus guided manual checks and an evidence record". |
| 9 | Monthly subscription | TS | Right model, but only if something changes every month for the agency (new client reports, statement updates, regression alerts). Otherwise it's a one-off scan with a subscription attached. |
| 10 | WCAG 2.1 AA as the standard | TS, with a watch item | The EAA points to the harmonised standard EN 301 549, whose current version maps to WCAG 2.1 AA. WCAG 2.2 has existed since Oct 2023. Build rules so you can add 2.2 criteria when the standard is updated. The timing of a new EN 301 549 is not verified. |
3.2 Scoreboard
| Category | Count | Features |
|---|---|---|
| Table stakes | 5 | Automated scanning, generic statement generator, per-issue fix text, monthly subscription, WCAG 2.1 AA |
| Differentiator | 5 | Evidence file, template-grouped fix list, country-specific live statement, agency channel, honest "not an overlay" positioning |
| Distraction | 1 | Selling to small stores |
| Liability | 3 | Evidence framed as a legal defence, "EAA monitoring" implying compliance, EAA fear sold to exempt stores |
About half of what you described is a reason to buy, and only once it's reframed. The scanner itself, which is where the idea starts, is the least valuable part.
3.3 Building to avoid selling: explicit call-outs
- A custom rules engine or crawler. It feels like "the real product", but axe-core is better tested than anything you'll write in a year.
- An AI auto-fix that edits client sites. It demos well, and it's the overlay problem again: code you inject into someone else's checkout, with your name on it when it breaks.
- A dashboard with scores and charts. A "94/100" score reads as "94% compliant". Show counts, trends and what's untested instead.
- Supporting every CMS. Pick one or two where your agencies work.
3.4 What a disciplined v1 looks like
Keep: axe-core scans of a template sample per site (weekly), template-grouped fix list, guided manual checklist with evidence capture, evidence file export, country-specific statement (1 language first), white-label monthly PDF per client, multi-client agency dashboard. Defer: client portal, Jira/GitHub export, scripted checkout journeys, second language, direct-business plan. Cut: overlay or widget, compliance scores and badges, AI auto-fix, small-store self-serve, SEO and uptime bundles, mobile app testing.