ChatGPT answers, unedited

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do more than an automated WCAG scan—ideally manual accessibility testing + healthcare UX research + remediation/design.

My first calls

1. Sandstorm Design — Probably the strongest Chicago-local all-around fit. They combine UX strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation, and enterprise web work. Their positioning also includes healthcare.

2. UX 4Sight — A good choice if the bigger problem is portal usability and patient experience rather than compliance alone. They explicitly offer UX audits covering usability, accessibility, visual design, and end-to-end experience, and are Chicago-based. ux4sight.com

3. Grand Studio — Worth contacting for a larger product/UX transformation. They specialize in human-centered research, UX/UI, service design and complex enterprise problems, with healthcare experience in their portfolio.

4. Rowe Intermedia — Interesting Chicago option if you want stronger accessibility/compliance expertise alongside healthcare digital work. Their services include accessibility audits/remediation and healthcare-focused digital consulting.

5. Bold Insight — Especially interesting if you need serious user research/human factors, including healthcare and medical-product experience, rather than simply a website redesign.

If accessibility is the primary concern

I'd also talk to The Chicago Lighthouse. It's not a conventional UX agency, but its accessibility practice provides accessibility consulting, audits, WCAG/508 compliance work, training, and technology assistance, with substantial accessibility experience. chicagolighthouse.org

The Chicago Lighthouse accessibility services

For a healthcare portal, I would not select an agency based on an automated “accessibility score.” Ask each finalist to demonstrate manual keyboard and screen-reader testing, testing of real patient workflows (registration, appointment scheduling, messaging, results, forms, etc.), and how they involve users with disabilities. Manual testing catches barriers that automated scanners miss. accessihealth.com

My recommendation: send an RFP to Sandstorm, UX 4Sight, and Grand Studio, and use Chicago Lighthouse as the accessibility-specialist benchmark. That gives you three different strengths to compare rather than getting three essentially identical proposals.

If you tell me rough portal size/users, whether it's a hospital/health system or health-tech company, and whether you need the agency to actually implement the UX fixes, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 and pull together contact information and relevant healthcare case studies.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Intechnic Corporation - 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Design Science - 909 Davis St, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• Rowe Intermedia - Chicago, IL 60641
• Pathfinder Development - 222 W Merchandise Mart Plaza Ste 1230, Chicago, IL 60610, United States
• Alphazeta - 325 W Huron St, Ste 506, Chicago, IL 60654
• UX Healthcare - 211 E 43rd St 7th Floor, New York, NY 10017, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 811 W Evergreen Ave #305, Chicago, IL 60642, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• LCM Architects - 200 N LaSalle St #2700, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• WeCo Accessibility Services - 300 1/2 S Main St, Stillwater, MN 55082
• Sage Health Strategy - 318 W Adams St Ste 1300D, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do both serious manual accessibility testing and patient-centered UX work, rather than hiring a generic web-design shop.

My top contacts

• Sandstorm Design — Best overall Chicago fit. They’re local, UX-focused, and explicitly work in inclusive design/accessibility, with healthcare among their client sectors. Their accessibility work includes audits, remediation support, and training.

Running Start Digital- Intechnic Corporation — Best for a complex portal/product UX overhaul. Chicago-based and particularly experienced with healthcare, pharma and life sciences. Their strength is UX research, information architecture and product/interface design; I’d confirm the depth of their independent WCAG audit capability during the RFP.

• UX 4Sight — Good UX-audit option. Chicago-based and specifically offers UX audits encompassing usability and accessibility, making them worth considering if the biggest issue is patient friction and workflow rather than just technical compliance.
• The Chicago Lighthouse — Best accessibility specialist to involve in the audit. They provide accessibility consulting, certification, audit services and WCAG/508 compliance work, with a strong emphasis on usability for people with disabilities. They may be particularly valuable as an independent accessibility partner even if you use a separate agency for the UX redesign. The Chicago Lighthouse
• Access Living — Another strong accessibility-focused option. Their web-accessibility testing combines automated testing with manual evaluation and explicitly targets WCAG 2.2 AA, including real-world usability barriers. They have worked with organizations including the University of Chicago. Access Living
• Design Science — Particularly interesting if your portal has complicated healthcare workflows. They're a Chicago-area human-factors/usability firm specializing in healthcare and medical technology. I'd consider them for workflow research and usability testing alongside an accessibility specialist.

If I were running the RFP

I'd invite Sandstorm, Intechnic, and one accessibility-first firm (Chicago Lighthouse or Access Living) to bid. That gives you three different strengths: integrated UX/accessibility, deep healthcare product UX, and genuinely independent accessibility expertise.

For the scope, I'd require the winner to test actual patient journeys, not just run an automated scanner: login/account recovery, appointment scheduling, forms, messaging, results/documents, keyboard navigation, screen readers, zoom/text resizing, mobile accessibility, and cognitive/usability friction. Manual testing matters because automated tools don't catch many real accessibility barriers. Access Living Accessibilities

One other option worth a look is Consensus Interactive, which explicitly combines healthcare digital work with WCAG/ADA audits, manual assistive-technology testing, remediation, and HIPAA-oriented platform development. Consensus Interactive

If you tell me roughly how large the portal is, whether it's Epic/MyChart or custom, and your budget range, I can narrow this to 3 agencies and give you the exact person/contact page to approach at each one.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d prioritize agencies that can handle manual WCAG testing + healthcare UX research, rather than a generic web-design shop. A good shortlist:

1. Sandstorm Design — Probably my first Chicago call. They combine UX strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation and training, and have healthcare experience. consensusinteractive.com

Sandstorm Design

2. Mightybytes — Strong option if you want accessibility integrated into the broader redesign rather than treated as a compliance-only audit. They're Chicago-based and explicitly work to WCAG 2.2 AA.

Mightybytes

3. UX 4Sight — Worth contacting if the biggest problem is portal usability. Their Chicago practice offers UX audits covering usability and accessibility, including healthcare-related work.

4. Design Science — Especially interesting if your portal has complicated clinical workflows. They're in Evanston and specialize in healthcare human factors and usability testing, with Chicago-area usability labs.

5. Fuzzy Math — A good UX-heavy alternative for information architecture, research, interaction design and simplifying complex digital products.

I'd structure the RFP around these requirements

Don't ask merely for an "ADA audit." Ask for:

• WCAG 2.2 AA manual audit of the actual patient workflows
• Keyboard-only, screen-reader and zoom testing
• Testing of login, registration, appointment scheduling, messaging, forms, results and billing
• Usability research with patients, including people with disabilities
• Heuristic/UX assessment and journey mapping
• Prioritized findings tied to WCAG success criteria
• Developer-ready remediation recommendations
• Design-system/component accessibility review
• Re-testing after fixes
• Accessibility governance/training so the next portal release doesn't regress

That's important because automated scanners catch only part of accessibility problems; manual keyboard and assistive-technology testing is needed for the interactive portal experience. runningstart.digital

My starting three: Sandstorm for the strongest overall Chicago fit, Mightybytes for accessibility + digital implementation, and Design Science if the portal has particularly complex healthcare workflows.

If you tell me which health system/portal technology you're using (e.g. Epic/MyChart, custom portal, Salesforce, etc.) and roughly the portal's size, I can narrow this to 3 agencies and compare their healthcare/accessibility credentials and likely fit.

Yes. For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do both serious accessibility testing and patient-facing UX, rather than hiring a generic web-design shop.

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first Chicago call. They combine UX-driven strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation and enterprise web work, with healthcare among their stated sectors. This is a particularly good fit if you want the audit to feed directly into a broader portal redesign. consensusinteractive.com

2. Intechnic Corporation — strong choice if the portal is complex, integrated with clinical/healthcare systems, or has multiple user groups. They're Chicago-based and specialize in UX research/design for healthcare, pharma and life sciences. digitalscientists.com

3. Clique Studios — a good option if you want a larger digital agency that can take findings through UX, design, engineering and implementation. Their Chicago practice specifically lists UX research, usability testing and accessibility design.

4. UX 4Sight — worth considering for a more focused UX engagement. Their Chicago practice offers UX audits including usability and accessibility, which could work well for an initial portal assessment.

5. TXI — another strong product-design option if you're contemplating substantial changes to workflows rather than simply fixing accessibility defects. Their approach includes user research, usability testing and accessibility-oriented product design.

I'd also get one accessibility-specialist quote

For a healthcare portal, I'd consider benchmarking the UX agencies against a specialist such as Accessibilities. They emphasize manual WCAG testing, remediation and testing with people with disabilities—not just automated scanners. Their healthcare practice specifically covers portals and healthcare websites. accessibilities.co

Deque is another strong specialist to consider if you want a particularly rigorous accessibility assessment; it offers manual assessments/validation, mobile testing, developer support and accessibility-program services for healthcare. www.deque.com

What I'd put in the RFP

Ask each firm to price a first phase covering:

• WCAG 2.2 AA manual audit of the actual patient portal workflows
• Keyboard-only + screen-reader testing (JAWS/NVDA/VoiceOver)
• Testing with people with disabilities, not just automated axe/WAVE scans
• Patient usability research and task-based testing
• Accessibility + UX assessment of registration/login, appointment scheduling, forms, messaging, records/results and billing
• Prioritized remediation backlog with severity, affected users, WCAG criterion and developer/design recommendations
• Prototype/redesign of the highest-friction workflows
• Re-test after remediation

I'd specifically avoid vendors whose primary solution is an accessibility overlay; automated tools are useful for finding some problems, but they don't substitute for manual and user testing. accessihealth.com

If I were narrowing this to three calls: Sandstorm for the best Chicago UX/accessibility blend, Intechnic for complex healthcare UX, and Deque or Accessibilities as the independent accessibility benchmark.

If you tell me roughly portal size, patient population, whether it's Epic/MyChart or custom, and your budget range, I can narrow this to 3–5 agencies and compare them on healthcare experience, accessibility credentials, likely fit, and contact details.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can handle both WCAG accessibility testing and patient-facing UX, rather than hiring a pure creative agency.

My top contacts

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. Chicago-based, with a strong combination of UX strategy, inclusive design/accessibility, and healthcare experience. Their accessibility work includes audits, remediation support, and training. chicagolighthouse.org

Sandstorm Design

2. Intechnic Corporation — particularly compelling if this is a complex patient portal rather than a simple healthcare website. They're Chicago-based and specialize in UX for healthcare, pharma, and other complex digital products.

Intechnic

3. UX 4Sight — a good fit if the emphasis is UX research/usability + accessibility. They explicitly offer UX audits, usability testing and healthcare UX, and are located in Chicago. ux4sight.com

UX 4Sight

4. Mightybytes — worth considering if you want an agency that treats accessibility as part of the product-development process rather than a one-time compliance exercise. Their Chicago team emphasizes WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility.

Mightybytes

5. Clique Studios — broader digital-transformation capability, including UX research, usability testing, accessibility design and healthcare work. Good candidate if the portal needs substantial redesign as well as an audit.

Clique Studios

One specialist I'd also bring into the process

The Chicago Lighthouse isn't a conventional UX agency, but its accessibility practice is particularly relevant. It offers accessibility consulting, certification, audit services, WCAG/508 compliance and technology assistance, with extensive experience testing digital experiences for people with disabilities. chicagolighthouse.org

My recommendation: send the same RFP to Sandstorm, Intechnic, UX 4Sight, and Chicago Lighthouse. That gives you a useful mix of healthcare UX + product design + independent accessibility expertise.

For the RFP, I'd specifically require manual WCAG 2.2 AA testing, keyboard testing, screen-reader testing, testing with disabled users where possible, patient-journey usability research, prioritized remediation tickets, and post-remediation verification. Automated scans alone aren't enough; manual testing is explicitly part of the stronger healthcare accessibility practices described by Chicago Lighthouse and Access Living. chicagolighthouse.org

If you tell me roughly portal size/users, whether it's Epic/MyChart or custom, and your budget range, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 agencies and compare them on healthcare experience, accessibility depth, UX capability, and likely fit.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do both hands-on WCAG testing and actual UX/product improvement, rather than hiring a generic web-design shop.

My top 4 to contact

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. Chicago-based, with experience in healthcare/medical organizations, UX-driven digital strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits, remediation, and training. This is the strongest overall fit if you want accessibility and UX handled as one engagement.

2. Mightybytes — good choice if you want a technically strong accessibility partner that can work alongside your existing product/development team. They emphasize WCAG 2.2 AA, accessibility audits/remediation, and sustainable digital practices.

3. Intechnic Corporation — particularly worth talking to if the portal is complex (multiple user types, lots of workflows, integrations, healthcare/pharma stakeholders). They're Chicago-based and specialize in UX research/design for healthcare and life sciences.

4. UX 4Sight — a more UX-centric option. Their services include UX audits covering usability, accessibility, visual design and end-to-end experience, so they're worth considering if the primary goal is making the portal substantially easier to use.

I'd also consider a specialist accessibility audit

If accessibility/compliance is especially high-risk, I'd consider bringing in an independent specialist rather than asking the UX agency to grade its own work. The Chicago Lighthouse has extensive accessibility consulting, audit, training and WCAG/508 services, including technology work informed by people with visual disabilities. chicagolighthouse.org

For a healthcare portal specifically, Accessible.org is another strong specialist benchmark: its healthcare audits cover patient portals, appointment scheduling, telehealth, billing and mobile apps, with manual screen-reader, keyboard, zoom and code testing—not just automated scans. accessible.orgrunningstart.digital

What I'd put in the RFP

Ask every bidder to demonstrate:

• WCAG 2.2 AA manual audit, not just an automated scan
• Keyboard + NVDA/JAWS/VoiceOver testing
• Testing of login, appointment scheduling, forms, results, messaging, payments and provider search
• Usability testing with people with disabilities
• UX research and journey mapping alongside the accessibility audit
• A prioritized remediation backlog with severity, WCAG criterion, affected workflow and developer-ready fix
• Redesign/prototyping of the highest-friction workflows
• Post-remediation accessibility testing
• Experience handling PHI/HIPAA and your security requirements

I'd also explicitly ask them to avoid accessibility overlays as the primary solution; a real audit should evaluate and fix the underlying interface. Healthcare accessibility specialists emphasize that automated scans alone miss substantial usability/accessibility problems. accessible.orgrunningstart.digital

If you want one agency to own the whole thing, I'd start conversations with Sandstorm, Mightybytes, and Intechnic. If compliance risk is particularly sensitive, I'd pair the eventual UX agency with an independent accessibility audit from Chicago Lighthouse or another specialist.

I can also narrow this to 5 agencies with healthcare-client examples, approximate project size/pricing, and direct contact links if you're preparing an RFP.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can handle both WCAG accessibility testing and actual patient-journey/UX improvement, rather than hiring a generic web-design shop.

My top contacts

1. Sandstorm Design — best overall Chicago fit
   • Chicago-based and explicitly focused on UX-driven strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation, and enterprise web work.
   • Particularly interesting if your portal has lots of stakeholders, content, governance, or an existing design system.
   • I’d make them one of the first firms you invite to pitch.

2. Intechnic Corporation — best for complex healthcare UX
   • Chicago-based UX consultancy with a strong healthcare/pharma/life-sciences orientation.
   • A good candidate if the project is more than an accessibility cleanup and you need information architecture, research, workflow redesign, and UX strategy.
   • Their downtown office is at 20 N. Wacker.

3. UX 4Sight — best smaller UX-focused option
   • Chicago firm offering UX audits, usability, accessibility analysis, and healthcare-oriented digital design.
   • Their healthcare work specifically includes patient portals and healthcare applications. ux4sight.com
   • Worth considering if you want a more hands-on UX partner rather than a large agency.

4. Fuzzy Math — strong UX/research candidate
   • Chicago UX strategy/design consultancy that specializes in making complex digital products easier to use.
   • I'd consider them particularly for patient research, workflow analysis, information architecture, and redesign, while making sure their accessibility audit methodology meets your requirements.

5. Rowe Intermedia — accessibility + healthcare niche
   • Chicago-based and specifically associated with digital accessibility/remediation and healthcare digital work.
   • Potentially a good specialist partner if accessibility is the dominant requirement.

One specialist I would also talk to

The Chicago Lighthouse isn't a conventional UX agency, but I'd strongly consider them for the independent accessibility-testing component. Their accessibility practice offers certification, consulting, audits, WCAG/Section 508 work, and technology assistance, with an emphasis on usability for people with disabilities. chicagolighthouse.org

Likewise, Access Living provides web accessibility testing combining automated testing with manual evaluation and explicitly tests to WCAG 2.2 AA. www.accessliving.org

How I'd structure the RFP

I'd ask each firm to quote the same four phases:

1. Accessibility audit

• WCAG 2.2 AA
• automated + manual testing
• keyboard-only
• NVDA/JAWS/VoiceOver
• actual patient workflows, not just public pages
• testing with people with disabilities if possible

2. UX research

• patient/user interviews
• task-based usability testing
• appointment scheduling
• registration/login
• forms and intake
• finding test results/records
• messaging
• mobile experience

3. Prioritized redesign

• journey maps
• information architecture
• wireframes/prototypes
• design-system recommendations
• accessibility built into components rather than bolted on afterward

4. Remediation + validation

• developer-ready fixes
• design/code review
• regression testing
• post-remediation WCAG audit
• accessibility governance/training

That's important because an automated accessibility score alone won't tell you whether a patient using a screen reader can actually find a doctor, complete an intake form, or schedule an appointment. Access Living explicitly distinguishes automated checks from manual evaluation of real-world usability barriers. www.accessliving.org

If I were issuing the first three invitations: Sandstorm Design, Intechnic, and UX 4Sight. I'd potentially pair the winning UX agency with Chicago Lighthouse or Access Living for independent accessibility validation.

I can also put together a 5–7 agency Chicago RFP shortlist with contact links, healthcare experience, accessibility credentials, estimated agency size, and what to ask each in the pitch.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can handle both manual accessibility testing and patient-facing UX, rather than hiring a pure compliance scanner.

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. Chicago-based, with UX-driven digital strategy, inclusive design/accessibility, and experience across healthcare. Their accessibility work includes audits, remediation support, and training. www.mightybytes.com

Best for: a full UX + accessibility engagement with a local team.

2. UX 4Sight — Chicago UX/UI consultancy explicitly offering UX audits, including usability and accessibility, and healthcare digital-product work. ux4sight.com

Best for: improving the actual patient journey, information architecture, and usability alongside accessibility.

3. Grand Studio — Chicago product/design consultancy with healthcare experience and a strong complex-workflow/product-design orientation.

Best for: a larger portal redesign where research, service design, UX and product strategy are as important as WCAG remediation.

4. Highland — Chicago digital-product consultancy offering UX research, service design, experience mapping and UI/UX work, including healthcare.

Best for: understanding where patients get stuck and redesigning end-to-end workflows.

5. The Chicago Lighthouse — not a conventional UX agency, but I'd seriously consider them as the accessibility specialist in the process. They offer accessibility consulting, audits, WCAG/508 compliance and technology assistance, with more than 15 years of experience. chicagolighthouse.org

Best for: an independent accessibility audit or accessibility expertise alongside a UX agency.

One important procurement point

For a healthcare portal, I'd require the winning vendor to do manual WCAG 2.2 AA testing, not just an automated scan. Specifically ask them to test:

• Screen readers (NVDA/JAWS/VoiceOver)
• Keyboard-only navigation
• Appointment scheduling and intake flows
• Login/password-reset flows
• Forms, validation and error recovery
• Modal/dialog and focus behavior
• Mobile/responsive experiences
• PDFs and patient documents, if applicable
• Testing with people who actually use assistive technology

A good audit should produce a severity-prioritized remediation backlog tied to WCAG success criteria, followed by retesting after fixes. Chicago's Access Living, for example, explicitly combines automated testing with manual evaluation and real-world usability considerations. www.accessliving.org

If I were sending out three initial RFPs, I'd start with Sandstorm, UX 4Sight, and the Chicago Lighthouse—with the Lighthouse potentially serving as the independent accessibility evaluator while the agency handles UX/design remediation.

I can also put together a Chicago-focused RFP/vendor scorecard with recommended questions, deliverables, and criteria for comparing these agencies.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do both serious WCAG accessibility testing and patient-facing UX work, rather than hiring a generic web-design shop.

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — Chicago
   • Probably my first call for a combined UX + accessibility engagement.
   • Chicago-based and focused on UX-driven strategy, inclusive design, and enterprise web work; its accessibility capabilities include audits, remediation support, and training.
   • Good fit if you need to improve the portal experience and establish accessibility practices that survive future releases.

2. Intechnic Corporation — Chicago
   • Strong candidate if the portal is technically complex.
   • Their Chicago practice focuses on UX research/design and digital experience optimization, with substantial healthcare, pharma, and life-sciences positioning.
   • I'd ask specifically whether their proposed accessibility work includes manual WCAG testing, not just UX heuristics and automated scans.

3. UX 4Sight — Chicago
   • Worth contacting if the primary problem is usability and patient journey friction.
   • Their services include UX audits covering usability, accessibility, visual design, and the end-to-end experience.

4. Rowe Intermedia — Chicago
   • Particularly interesting for a healthcare organization because its work spans healthcare digital assets and accessibility remediation.
   • I'd consider them if your scope includes documents/PDFs and content accessibility in addition to the portal.

5. Design Science — Evanston/Chicago area
   • This is the specialist I'd consider if the portal has complicated clinical workflows, patient/provider interactions, or usability/safety concerns.
   • They're a healthcare human-factors and usability firm rather than simply a web agency, which can be valuable for a healthcare portal.

Also worth considering for the accessibility side

Access Design Studio is a strong specialist option if you want an accessibility-led engagement. Its approach includes manual auditing and testing with people with disabilities, rather than relying solely on automated scanners.

The Chicago Lighthouse is another particularly credible local option for an independent accessibility audit. It offers accessibility consulting, audits, WCAG/508 compliance work, and training, with more than 15 years of relevant experience. chicagolighthouse.org

For comparison, Mightybytes is a Chicago agency that explicitly combines experience design with accessibility and says its deliverables comply with WCAG 2.2 AA by default. www.mightybytes.com

How I'd structure the RFP

I'd ask each agency to quote a two-stage engagement:

Stage 1 — independent audit + UX research

• WCAG 2.2 AA automated and manual audit
• Keyboard-only and screen-reader testing
• Testing with actual disabled users
• Patient journey/usability research
• Accessibility of authentication, forms, scheduling, messaging, medical records, error states, etc.
• Prioritized findings by patient impact, accessibility severity, and development effort

Stage 2 — remediation + UX improvement

• Redesign the highest-friction workflows
• Accessible design-system/component recommendations
• Developer-ready accessibility fixes
• Usability testing of redesigned workflows
• Regression testing before launch
• Accessibility QA process your internal team can continue using

I would not select a vendor based on an automated "accessibility score." Automated testing catches only part of the problem; the stronger proposals will include manual assistive-technology testing and testing with people with disabilities. Chicago Lighthouse, Access Living, and other accessibility specialists explicitly emphasize this distinction. chicagolighthouse.org

If I were issuing the RFP, my first three calls would be Sandstorm Design, Intechnic, and the Chicago Lighthouse—with the Lighthouse potentially serving as the independent accessibility specialist while one of the agencies handles the broader UX redesign. That separation can give you a more credible audit and reduce the risk of an agency effectively grading its own work. chicagolighthouse.org

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d prioritize firms that can do both serious accessibility testing and patient-facing UX/product work, rather than a generic web-design shop.

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. Chicago-based, with UX strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation, and healthcare experience. Good fit if you want the audit findings translated into a broader portal UX improvement program.

2. Intechnic Corporation — strong choice for a complex healthcare portal. They specialize in UX research/design for healthcare, pharma and life sciences, so I'd put them high on the list if the portal has complicated workflows, integrations, or multiple user types.

3. Mightybytes — Chicago-based and explicitly focused on accessibility, including WCAG 2.2 AA, audits, remediation and training. Particularly interesting if you want accessibility embedded into the product/design process rather than treated as a one-off compliance exercise.

4. UX 4Sight — a more UX-centric option. Their services include UX audits covering usability and accessibility, making them worth considering if the main objective is improving the patient experience, with accessibility as a major component.

5. Clique Studios — broader digital-transformation capability: UX research, usability testing, accessibility design and engineering, with healthcare experience. I'd consider them if this expansion may turn into a larger redesign/build engagement.

One specialist I'd add to the RFP

Access Living is especially interesting as an accessibility-testing partner. Its web accessibility service combines automated testing with manual testing and real-world usability considerations, and its team includes IAAP CPACC and DHS Trusted Tester expertise. www.accessliving.org

That could be valuable alongside a UX agency because automated accessibility scans aren't enough for a healthcare portal—you want keyboard, screen-reader, form, navigation and actual disabled-user testing.

If I were choosing three to contact

Sandstorm + Intechnic + Mightybytes would be my initial RFP shortlist.

I'd ask each for a proposal covering:

• WCAG 2.2 AA audit of the actual portal—not just the public website
• Manual keyboard + screen-reader testing
• Testing of critical patient journeys: login → search/find care → scheduling → forms → results/messages → billing
• Usability research with patients/caregivers, including disabled users
• Prioritized accessibility remediation backlog mapped to WCAG criteria
• UX recommendations/wireframes/prototypes
• Design-system/component accessibility review
• Developer handoff and remediation support
• Post-fix accessibility validation
• Experience with HIPAA-sensitive environments and handling test data safely

For comparison, specialized healthcare accessibility firms such as AccessiHealth explicitly audit patient portals and combine manual/automated WCAG testing with remediation, while Chicago Lighthouse offers accessibility consulting, audits, certification and WCAG/508 services. accessihealth.com

One caution: don't select an agency based on an automated “accessibility score” or an overlay product. For a healthcare portal, I'd insist on documented manual testing and testing with assistive technology.

If you tell me roughly portal size, patient population, and whether you're looking for audit-only vs. audit + redesign + implementation, I can narrow this to 3–5 agencies and give you the right contact person/website for each.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do both rigorous accessibility work and actual UX improvement—not just an automated WCAG scan.

My top contacts

1. Sandstorm Design — best overall fit
   • Chicago-based and explicitly focused on UX-driven strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation, and training.
   • Their client mix includes healthcare and other complex, stakeholder-heavy organizations.
   • Good choice if you want the audit to feed directly into a broader portal redesign. www.mightybytes.com

2. Mightybytes — best for accessibility + inclusive UX
   • Chicago digital agency with a strong accessibility practice and experience-design offering.
   • They say their deliverables comply with WCAG 2.2 AA by default and include stakeholder research/testing. www.mightybytes.com
   • Particularly attractive if you're looking for a partner that can improve the experience rather than treating compliance as a checkbox.

3. Intechnic Corporation — best for complex healthcare/product UX
   • Chicago-based UX consultancy with a particular focus on healthcare, pharma and life sciences.
   • Strong candidate if the portal has complicated workflows, multiple user types, provider/patient functionality, or legacy UX problems.

4. UX 4Sight — best if you want a focused UX audit
   • Chicago agency offering UX audits covering usability, accessibility, visual design and end-to-end experience.
   • Their healthcare work makes them worth including in an RFP. ux4sight.com

5. Rowe Intermedia — best accessibility-specialist option
   • Chicago-based and specifically combines digital accessibility/remediation with healthcare-oriented digital work.
   • I'd consider them if accessibility is the primary risk and you want a technically focused audit before bringing in a UX redesign team.

One additional option

Pivot Design is worth considering if the project has a substantial healthcare/life-sciences strategy and communications component, although I'd rank the firms above higher for a portal-centered accessibility/UX engagement.

How I'd approach the RFP: ask each agency to quote a first phase consisting of WCAG 2.2 AA manual + automated audit, keyboard/screen-reader testing, usability testing with patients/users with disabilities, heuristic UX review, and a prioritized remediation/design roadmap. Don't accept an automated accessibility score as the audit.

If you want, I can also narrow this to 3 agencies with the strongest healthcare-portal track records and give you their contact details + what to ask each one in the first call.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do more than an automated WCAG scan—ideally combining manual accessibility testing, UX research/usability testing, healthcare experience, and remediation guidance.

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — best Chicago all-around fit

Chicago-based and explicitly focused on UX-driven strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation, and enterprise web work. Its positioning also includes healthcare clients, making it a strong candidate if you want one agency to own both the accessibility and UX improvement work.

2. UX 4Sight — best if UX improvement is the bigger priority

Their healthcare offering specifically covers patient portals and healthcare applications, with UX audits, user research, usability testing, and accessibility work. ux4sight.com

3. Mightybytes — good for a mission-driven healthcare organization

Chicago-based digital agency with an accessibility-focused approach and experience designing/building digital products. I'd ask specifically for examples of patient-facing portal work and their manual WCAG testing methodology.

4. Rowe Intermedia — interesting healthcare + accessibility specialist

Particularly worth contacting if the portal includes lots of healthcare documents, PDFs, forms, or other content in addition to the web application. Its Chicago practice combines healthcare/life-sciences digital work with accessibility remediation.

5. Solid Digital — good larger digital-experience option

Chicago office with UX research/testing, strategy, app design and development, and ongoing digital optimization. I'd evaluate them more heavily if the project includes substantial redesign/development rather than just an audit.

I'd also consider a specialist for the audit

Access Design Studio is worth looking at if you want particularly rigorous accessibility testing. They emphasize real-world testing with people with disabilities rather than relying solely on automated scanners.

And The Chicago Lighthouse is a particularly credible local option for an independent accessibility assessment. It offers accessibility consulting, certification, audits, WCAG/508 compliance and technology assistance, with substantial experience in accessibility for people who are blind or visually impaired. chicagolighthouse.org

If this were my RFP

I'd invite Sandstorm, UX 4Sight, and Access Design Studio/The Chicago Lighthouse into the first round. That gives you a useful mix of:

• Healthcare/product UX
• Independent accessibility expertise
• WCAG 2.2 AA manual testing
• Keyboard + screen-reader testing
• Patient usability research
• Prioritized remediation roadmap
• Accessibility-aware design-system recommendations
• Post-remediation verification

One important procurement question: don't accept an “accessibility score” from an automated scanner as the audit. For a patient portal, ask vendors to demonstrate manual keyboard and screen-reader testing and testing with users with disabilities. Access Living, for example, explicitly describes combining automated testing with manual evaluation and real-world UX barriers. www.accessliving.org

If you tell me roughly portal size/users, whether it's Epic/MyChart or custom, and your budget range, I can narrow this to 3 agencies and give you the specific contact/person + what to ask each one.

For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do more than an automated WCAG scan—ideally combining manual accessibility testing, healthcare UX research, and remediation/design work.

My shortlist

1. Mightybytes — Probably my first call for a Chicago-based engagement. They focus on mission-driven digital products, accessibility, and WCAG 2.2 AA, with audits, remediation, and training. Their Chicago presence is established. www.americaneagle.com

Mightybytes website

2. Sandstorm Design — Strong fit if you want UX strategy + inclusive design + accessibility rather than a compliance-only audit. They're Chicago-based and specifically work with healthcare/mission-driven organizations.

Sandstorm Design website

3. UX 4Sight — Worth contacting for the UX improvement side. They offer UX audits, usability/accessibility evaluation, research, and healthcare-oriented digital work, and are located in Chicago. ux4sight.com

UX 4Sight website

4. Bold Insight — Especially interesting if your portal has complicated patient workflows. They're a Chicago-area human-factors/UX research firm with healthcare and medical-product expertise. I'd use them when actual patient/user research and usability testing are a major part of the project.

5. Design Science — Another strong option for healthcare-specific human factors and usability research. They're based in Evanston and specialize in healthcare/medical technology usability. This is more research/HFE-oriented than a conventional web agency.

One specialist worth adding to the RFP

Accessibilities is not Chicago-based, but I'd consider them as an independent accessibility auditor. Their healthcare offering emphasizes manual WCAG inspections, assistive-technology testing, developer-ready findings, and remediation verification. accessibilities.co

That can be valuable if you want the accessibility audit to be genuinely independent from the team redesigning the portal.

How I'd structure the selection

For a healthcare portal, I'd ask each vendor to quote separately for:

• WCAG 2.2 AA audit — automated + manual keyboard/screen-reader testing
• Testing of the actual patient workflows, not just public pages
• Usability testing with people with disabilities
• UX heuristic review and patient journey analysis
• Prioritized remediation roadmap
• Design-system/component accessibility review
• Design and/or engineering remediation
• Independent post-remediation verification
• Accessibility governance/training so the portal doesn't regress

I'd also ask for 2–3 healthcare portal references, specifically requesting examples involving authenticated experiences, forms, scheduling, search, messaging, and complex clinical information.

If I were sending out only three initial inquiries, I'd start with Mightybytes, Sandstorm Design, and Bold Insight—that gives you a useful mix of accessibility implementation, UX/design, and rigorous healthcare user research.

Yes. For a Chicago healthcare portal, I’d shortlist agencies that can do both hands-on accessibility auditing and actual UX/product improvement, rather than hiring a generic web-design shop.

My top 4 to contact

1. Intechnic Corporation — probably my first call. They’re Chicago-based and have a particularly strong fit for healthcare/pharma/life-sciences UX, including complex digital products and UX research/design. noseberry.com

Best for: a substantial patient-portal UX overhaul where accessibility is one part of a broader product redesign.

2. Sandstorm Design — strong Chicago option for UX strategy, inclusive design, accessibility audits/remediation and enterprise web work, with healthcare experience.

Best for: combining accessibility remediation with information architecture, content and overall patient experience.

3. Mightybytes — Chicago agency with a particularly explicit accessibility/inclusive-design practice. They say their deliverables conform to WCAG 2.2 AA, and their experience-design work includes stakeholder research and testing. www.mightybytes.com

Best for: accessibility-led redesign with strong user research and sustainable design practices.

4. UX 4Sight — Chicago UX specialist offering UX audits, usability testing and accessibility analysis, and specifically markets healthcare UX including patient portals. ux4sight.com

Best for: a focused UX audit and improvement program rather than a giant agency engagement.

Also worth considering

TXI is worth an RFP if the portal is technically complex or you're contemplating significant product changes. They're a Chicago digital-product consultancy with human-centered research, usability testing and accessibility-oriented design capabilities.

For an independent accessibility perspective, I'd also talk to Access Living. Their web-accessibility testing combines automated checks with manual evaluation and real-world usability concerns, including testing against WCAG 2.2 AA. www.accessliving.orgchicagolighthouse.org

One important procurement point

I'd ask every agency to explicitly include:

• WCAG 2.2 AA manual audit, not just an automated scan
• Keyboard-only and screen-reader testing
• Testing with people with disabilities, where possible
• Patient-journey/usability research
• Accessibility review of authentication, forms, appointment flows, error states and health-data visualization
• A prioritized remediation backlog mapped to WCAG criteria
• Design-system/component accessibility review
• Post-remediation validation, not just an initial report

For a healthcare portal, I'd be especially wary of anyone selling an automated accessibility "score" or overlay as the primary solution. Manual testing catches usability barriers that automated tools miss. www.accessliving.orgchicagolighthouse.org

If I were issuing the RFP, I'd invite Intechnic, Sandstorm, Mightybytes and UX 4Sight to pitch. That gives you four meaningfully different approaches and should make the proposals easier to compare.