B

Web Accessibility Auto-Scroll Auditor

4.05

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Recognition of auto-scroll issues in web accessibility
→
Step 2 Web accessibility compliance tools
→
Step 3 Accessibility violation detection and fix guide specifically for auto-scroll and moving content

Competitor references

No usable source links are available for this idea. Its signal notes and scores need independent verification.

Problem

After the expansion of mandatory web accessibility requirements under the Anti-Discrimination Against and Remedies for Persons with Disabilities Act in 2025, SMEs and shopping malls must obtain web accessibility certification. However, moving content such as auto-scrolling banners, auto-playing videos, and infinite scroll feeds accounts for about 25% of all accessibility errors, violating WCAG 2.2 Level AA. Existing accessibility testing tools (WAVE, Lighthouse) cannot accurately detect these dynamic content violations, and professional consulting costs 2 to 5 million KRW (approx. $1,500 to $3,750) per case.

Solution

When a URL is entered, the page is rendered using Puppeteer/Playwright to automatically detect moving content such as auto-scroll, auto-play, flashing, and infinite scroll, and report WCAG 2.2 violations. For each violation, it provides framework-specific (React/Vue/WordPress) code fix examples and priority scores, and tracks certification readiness through re-testing after fixes.

Target: Development team leads at small shopping malls and web service operators with annual revenue of 100 million to 2 billion KRW (approx. $75,000 to $1.5 million), and freelancers who handle web accessibility certification on behalf of clients.
Revenue Model: Per inspection: 3,900 KRW (approx. $2.93) for up to 10 pages; monthly subscription: 29,000 KRW/month (approx. $21.75) for unlimited inspections and tracking; reseller for certification agencies: 99,000 KRW/month (approx. $74.25).
Ecosystem Role: Regulation
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
3.0/5
U Urgency
5.0/5
M Market
4.0/5
R Realizability
4.0/5
V Validation
4.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20

Feasibility (77%)

Tech Complexity
34.7/40
Data Availability
22.5/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (61/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
16.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
12.0/15
Solo Buildability
8.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Backend [medium] Frontend [low] Infrastructure [low]
Dashboard