Skip to main content

About Latchkey

The accessibility vendor that publishes what its own testing missed

Latchkey is a WCAG 2.2 AA-based remediation platform, currently a private beta. This page is about the thesis rather than the company, because on a product this young the thesis is the part worth reading: what we measure, what we refuse to say, and which of our own claims are enforced by our own build rather than by good intentions.

Private beta · axe-core 4.10 engine · visitor interface in 33 languages

The bet

Publishing what automated testing did not cover is worth more than claiming it covered everything

The overlay market spent a decade selling the second thing, and a regulator eventually took it apart. We think the first thing is a better product as well as a safer one: a named list of the rules nobody has checked yet is a work plan, and a report that implies there is nothing left to do is a report that gets someone in trouble later.

What we design around

Why this category needed a different bet

Four things happened to the incumbent overlay vendor. None of them was a bug. Each one traces back to a sentence in a marketing page, which is why our marketing has a build gate on it.

  • FTC, 2025

    A regulator acted on the advertising, not the code

    The Federal Trade Commission brought a deceptive-advertising action against the largest overlay vendor. What it turned on was the marketing: an automated product sold as though it delivered a legal outcome, alongside reviews that never disclosed they had been paid for. The resulting order restricts claims of that shape. This is the single fact that shaped this product.

  • NFB, 2021

    The people it was built for withdrew their support

    The National Federation of the Blind ended its sponsorship relationship with that vendor. The Overlay Fact Sheet, signed by accessibility practitioners and by people who use assistive technology daily, documents readers blocking overlay scripts at the hosts-file level in order to get a site back.

  • Litigation trackers

    The complaints kept arriving anyway

    Trackers kept finding accessibility complaints filed against sites that already had an overlay installed, and in July 2026 the incumbent withdrew the litigation-cost pledge it had been selling to new customers. An overlay is a reasonable bridge while the source gets fixed. Sold as a shield, it was never either.

  • Design consequence

    Detecting assistive technology was the wrong instinct

    Switching a profile on because a visitor pressed Tab was read by the people it targeted as interference with their own software. Latchkey does no assistive-technology detection at all: no user-agent sniffing, no heuristics, no key handling inside your inputs. Every profile is opt-in, and the interface ships in 33 languages so that opting in is possible in the visitor’s own language.

None of that is an argument that an overlay is useless. It is an argument about what a vendor is allowed to say about one, and it is the reason this company is organised around evidence rather than assurances.

Differences, not superlatives

What we do differently

Four mechanisms, all of them real and all of them in the repository that builds this site. Two of them exist specifically to fail our own release, which is the only kind of promise a reader can verify without taking our word for anything.

Every fix carries a label

Deterministic when the fix follows from the markup. Inferred when it was proposed from surrounding context and cleared a refusal gate. Declined when neither holds, and a declined fix is handed to you as needing a person rather than guessed at. A confident wrong aria-label misleads screen-reader users for years; a missing one gets caught by the next audit.

Every site gets a coverage table that names rules, not counts

The table lists the rules that ran and the rules that did not, by name, for that site. Automated checks cover roughly one third of WCAG success criteria, so the part that was never examined is the more useful half of the report: a percentage tells you nothing you can act on, a named untested rule is a work item.

A claim linter can fail this build

The copy you are reading went through it. It matches claim shapes rather than banned words, so the product can still describe what a regulation requires and can still ask the question a visitor actually has, while the build fails on an assertion that software delivered a legal outcome, a guarantee of an outcome, a promise about litigation, or a claim of total coverage. The sentences the product is required to carry are allowlisted, which is what stops a gate like this from being switched off the first time it blocks something true.

axe runs against our own pages, and a violation stops the release

Every route, in every designed state, at 1200, 375 and 320 pixels wide, with 320 there because that is where WCAG reflow is stated and where a sticky bar starts covering something. A state the harness could not reach is reported as skipped rather than counted as a pass, because a gate that prints a green line for a screen it never loaded is worse than no gate at all.

Three more, which are choices rather than features

  • We publish Flow prices.

    The developer platform is priced in public, on the same page as the widget plans, because a hidden price is a negotiation the buyer starts from behind.

  • Credentials arrive per scan and are never persisted.

    They travel in the request body, live in worker memory, and appear in no table, no log and no job record. Login is attempted exactly once and never retried, because account lockout on your production application is unrecoverable.

  • Screenshots are treated as production data.

    They hold whatever was on the page, so they are encrypted at rest, kept for 30 days or less, and deletable in one click.

See the published prices

Stated plainly

What we will not sell you

A stamp for your footer
We do not certify compliance, and no vendor can. What we produce is an accessibility statement and a conformance report: dated documents that say what was tested, with what, and what was found.
Cover for a lawsuit
We do not indemnify you or pay legal fees. The Evidence Pack is a dated, hashed record of the work that was actually done, which is a different product from an assurance and the only one of the two we think a vendor can honestly sell.
A verdict on your site
Compliance is a legal determination, not a product feature. Our result screens carry three status strings (BARRIERS FOUND, NEEDS REVIEW and NO AUTOMATED FAILURES) and not one of them is a statement about the law.
Total coverage
Roughly two thirds of WCAG success criteria cannot be decided by a machine at all: reading order, whether alt text is any good, whether an error message makes sense read aloud. Those need a person, which is why Services is a product line rather than an upsell invented for this page.

The product line

Four things we ship, and one standard behind them

  • Widget

    A visitor-facing accessibility interface in 33 languages, plus a background engine that patches barriers in the DOM at runtime. A bridge while you fix the source.

    See Widget
  • Flow

    A developer platform that crawls a whole site, including the pages behind your login, and ships fixes as code patches your team can review and merge.

    See Flow
  • Free scanner

    One public page, no account, results in about 30 seconds. It returns the whole report rather than a score behind an email gate.

    Scan a page free
  • Services

    The human work: expert audit, VPAT and ACR, testing with people who use assistive technology, file remediation, and the Evidence Pack.

    See Services

Private beta

What this page does not have

No testimonials, no customer logos, no review badges, no headcount, no funding announcement, no awards and no photographs of an office. Latchkey is a private beta, so all of those would have to be written rather than reported, and a vendor whose pitch is honesty about coverage cannot open with invented proof.

There is no founding date here either, for the plainer reason that there is nothing yet worth marking. When there are customers who will say something on the record, this page will quote them and name them. Until then the honest version of an about page is the argument, the mechanisms, and the things we have decided not to say.

Read the limitations page before you read the pricing page

It is the fastest way to find out whether we are the right vendor for you. Some readers will decide we are not, and for a site whose real problems live in the two thirds automation cannot see, that is the correct outcome.