Compliance vs. Legal Risks: Protected or Vulnerable?

When an organisation is known for its commitment to inclusivity, it resonates positively with customers. Such a reputation can expand market reach, attract a more diverse customer base and ultimately lead to increased revenue. In an age where consumers value social responsibility, investing in accessibility not only mitigates legal risks but also contributes to long-term business growth and sustainability. Consequently, organisations invest substantial effort in striving for compliance with accessibility guidelines, paying web developers and vendors who sell web services handsomely to ensure website compliance is achieved.

AAAtraq redefines the web compliance landscape. Its services are tailored to organisations responsible for financing operations and carrying the substantial risk associated with non-compliance. Its mission is to support organisations by clarifying roles and responsibilities and monitoring compliance without diving into technical complexities. To achieve this, AAAtraq operates quietly in the background, using a sophisticated risk-processing engine that assesses various factors instrumental in identifying compliance gaps.

What's the difference?

What sets AAAtraq apart is its ability to reduce the cost and time burdens linked to training staff to navigate these intricate compliance issues. Instead, it allows them to focus on their primary task of managing website content. While the risk-processing engine handles the compliance work, only actioning the changes from within the organisation is necessary. Additionally, AAAtraq offers unique risk protection insurance, acknowledging that unforeseen challenges can indeed arise from time to time.

Thriving

How many vendors and developers have thrived by capitalising on the ‘cloak of confusion’ surrounding compliance, often leaving their clients in the dark with overly complex reporting and stepping back when their clients face legal action? Do they benefit from the fact that no one is truly addressing the root problems?

The reason why so many financial resources have been allocated to compliance efforts, yet actual compliance has not improved, leading to a surge in litigation, is fundamentally straightforward. The majority of organisations adopt a reactive approach, waiting for compliance problems to surface before hastily fixing them, often encountering the same issues repeatedly. Undeniably, compliance standards are complex and when coupled with the fact that vendors are often tasked with self-reporting using metrics they themselves establish, the scenario becomes problematic.

Contention

This leads to perhaps the most contentious aspect of AAAtraq’s methodology – accountability. AAAtraq insists on holding those responsible for web compliance, primarily vendors and developers, accountable for their work.

If vendor promises are at the heart of compliance issues, profiting from contractual issues and inadequate training, reinforced by independent reporting, AAAtraq’s approach often disrupts the comfortable positions some vendors have enjoyed for years. Consequently, some dispute AAAtraq’s findings, suggesting a lack of understanding on our part. This resistance stems from their desire to safeguard their positions, as they fear exposure for subpar work, and ultimately, the risk of contract termination.

Guiding force

AAAtraq’s role as a guiding force, offering risk protection, removing confusion and promoting accountability is essential for businesses in an era of increasing litigation. While it may not be the most popular service among vendors and developers, its contribution to a safer and more compliant digital world cannot be denied. Ultimately,

AAAtraq serves as the ally organisations need to navigate the complex world of web compliance and avoid the legal pitfalls that come with non-compliance. Digital inclusivity and legal protection are our only concerns.