CARE: The Ethical Website Audit

The CARE Audit is designed for organisations that want to take responsibility – not just functionally, but socially:

• Social-impact startups and purpose-driven companies (ESG, mission-led)
• NGOs and social initiatives
• Universities and educational institutions
• Political organisations and foundations
• Municipal and public companies (utilities, housing associations, transport operators)

Imagine someone wants to donate to your cause. But your donation page shows 12 amount options, eight mandatory fields, and three checkboxes at once. The person feels overwhelmed, closes the tab in frustration – and doesn't donate.

The problem: Too much information, too many options, or decisions at once overload the brain. People drop off, make mistakes, or make suboptimal decisions.
We assess based on psychological research into working memory and decision complexity:

• Are too many options visible at once?
• Do users have to gather information from multiple places?
• Is the structure clear – or do people have to guess where things are?

Goal: A website or app that provides orientation rather than overwhelm – creating fair, comprehensible user experiences.

A typical scenario: someone with low vision wants to sign up for your course. But the text is grey on light grey – barely readable for them. Someone with a tremor encounters tiny buttons they can barely tap. They give up and sign up elsewhere.

The problem: Poor contrast, undersized elements, missing labels, or unclear structures exclude people – not only those with permanent physical impairments, but also older people, stressed people, or those on a slow connection.

Depending on the package, we check 1 to 3 topics based on WCAG 2.1 (Level AA) – the legally binding accessibility standard in Europe (BFSG/EAA) – for example:

• Are contrast ratios sufficient? (text, buttons)
• Are headings clearly structured? (hierarchy)
• Are forms comprehensibly labelled? (labels, error messages)

Important: This is not a full WCAG compliance procedure (no HTML code audit, no screen reader testing). We focus on UX and UI-level barriers that you can realistically address. 

Goal: A website or app that works for as many people as possible – regardless of ability or situation (e.g. on the go, noisy environment, bright sunlight).

Suppose someone doesn't actually want to subscribe to your newsletter, but instead of a neutral "No thanks" button, it reads: "No, I don't want important updates" or "No, I'll pass on free information." The person feels bad – and perhaps clicks "Yes" even though they didn't want to.

The problem: These kinds of formulations are called confirmshaming – they put people under emotional pressure and are designed to create a guilty conscience. Many organisations use them unintentionally, thinking "we just want to help!" But they can be perceived as manipulation. And in some cases they are even legally problematic (Digital Services Act, DSA).

We assess based on dark pattern research and psychological findings, including:

• Are things pre-selected that shouldn't be?
• Is important information easy to find?
• Are users placed under pressure? 
• Are there points where users are particularly likely to overlook something?

Goal: Make problematic patterns visible before they can become a problem – whether they arose deliberately or unintentionally.

A real-world example: an application form defaults to "Mr/Mrs" – without offering "non-binary" or an open text field. Or your app collects more data than it actually needs, without transparently explaining why – users might wonder: why do you need my phone number for this?

The problem: Hidden assumptions (e.g. "everyone is male or female"), unquestioned established structures (e.g. phone number fields as default), lack of transparency around data use, or one-sided representations can undermine trust and perceived fairness.

We assess based on established frameworks from UX research and ethical design principles::

• Are there signs of bias or exclusion? (e.g. one-sided assumptions, missing options)
• Is data use transparently explained?
• Does your UX align with ethical design principles? (e.g. autonomy, respect, fairness)

Goal: A website or app that is not only rule-compliant, but genuinely fair, respectful, and trustworthy.

Non-binding initial call (15–30 minutes) 

We get to know each other, clarify your requirements, and answer any open questions. Only then do you decide whether you'd like to book one of the packages.

Kick-off & Discovery (60–90 minutes)

We prioritise together: which processes or pages matter most? (e.g. donation flow, application form, course registration)

Analysis (duration depends on package)

We conduct a systematic analysis across the four CARE dimensions.

Report & Handover

You receive a CARE report (PDF) including:

• Executive summary (where do you stand?)
• Detailed findings per dimension (with screenshots)
• Urgency ratings for each finding 
• Prioritised recommendations (e.g. quick wins, medium-term, strategic)

Depending on the package, we also offer a results workshop where we walk through the report together, and a follow-up call for questions during or after implementation.