Accessibility decided at design stage, not patched after launch.
We build to the pharmaceutical website accessibility requirements your compliance team defines, against EN 301 549 and WCAG 2.1 AA, and we take the technical decisions that affect them while they are still cheap to change.
Most accessibility failures on pharmaceutical websites are structural and inherited: brand colours that fail contrast, PDFs that were never tagged, carousels that trap keyboard focus, and forms whose errors are not conveyed to screen-reader users. Fixing them after launch costs several times what deciding them at design stage would have.
Accessible components with real focus states, keyboard-operable journeys, contrast that holds across the brand palette, form error handling that is announced properly, and documentation of the decisions taken.
We build to the standard your compliance team defines, so the accessibility work lines up with the legal requirement they own rather than a separate opinion of our own.
The surface that pharmaceutical website accessibility work has had to cover in our projects.
The obligation is broad, but the difficult parts differ. Pharmaceutical website accessibility work starts from which content type is the problem.
What regulated companies ask about accessibility obligations.
That is a question for your legal and compliance team, not for an agency. Broadly, the EAA has applied since 28 June 2025 to companies above certain size and turnover thresholds that serve consumers in the EU, with EN 301 549 as the reference standard. Whether your specific properties fall in scope is a determination we would not make for you.
We build to EN 301 549, the European standard referenced by the Accessibility Act, which in turn points to WCAG 2.1 level AA as the practical benchmark. If your compliance team specifies a different target, such as WCAG 2.2 or a higher conformance level, we build to that instead. Either way, we document exactly what was implemented against the standard so your team has a record to show if it is ever questioned.
They are usually the largest gap. A site can pass automated checks while its patient leaflets and safety documents remain unusable with a screen reader. Remediating a large PDF library is a separate workstream, and it is worth scoping properly rather than assuming the website project covers it.
Often, and it is worth checking before assuming a rebuild. Contrast, focus, heading structure and form handling can frequently be corrected in place. What rarely survives is a site built entirely on a page builder with inaccessible third-party widgets, where the honest answer is that rebuilding costs less than patching.
Accessibility work usually arrives with a redesign or a replatform, because that is when the decisions are cheapest. These are the services it sits with.
A new build that has to meet a standard, or an existing site your compliance team has flagged. Tell us the requirement and we will tell you how we would approach the pharmaceutical website accessibility work.