01 / UNDERSTAND
What is a WCAG accessibility audit?
A WCAG accessibility audit examines digital content against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. This guide uses WCAG 2.2 as the technical reference, combining automated checks and informed manual evaluation.
A diagnostic review locates selected problems. Conformance evaluation systematically assesses requirements within a defined scope. A quick review cannot justify a claim that an entire website conforms.
Why use Accessibility Audit (WCAG)?
An audit makes barriers reproducible so teams can repair them and verify access. It also reveals shared component problems that can prevent essential tasks across many journeys.
When to use it
USE IT WHEN
A new or revised service needs a structured review before release.
Reported barriers need reproduction, assessment and an accountable repair path.
A team needs to establish current accessibility evidence and improve ongoing quality checks.
When to choose another method
Use Usability Testing with disabled participants to examine task performance.
Use Heuristic Evaluation for broader usability issues.
Use Process Mapping for failures in handovers or support.
What you’ll need
Define the purpose, product boundary, release, WCAG target and testing environment. Include relevant languages, authentication, errors, dynamic states and external services. Have the responsible specialist establish applicable jurisdictional or contractual requirements; a technical WCAG review is not a legal determination.
What a credible review documents
Keep the elements that help answer your question and support a decision.
The product boundary, complete processes and content covered by this review.
The named WCAG version and level, with any additional requirements separately recorded.
The evaluated pages, components, states and rationale for selection.
The release, browser, device and assistive technology used to reproduce behaviour.
A criterion assessment supported by steps, observations and useful captures.
An owner, proposed correction and repeatable check for each barrier.
02 / PUT IT INTO PRACTICE
How to review accessibility against WCAG
Keep evidence and assumptions distinct. Revisit your work when new information changes your understanding.
01
Define the evaluation
Set purpose, boundary, target and reporting claim. Select appropriately skilled evaluators.
State whether coverage is a sample or every page.
02
Explore complete journeys
Inventory templates, components, content and states. Follow important processes, including failures.
Include sign in, selection, payment errors and confirmation.
03
Record coverage
Select varied representative content and complete processes. Explain each selection.
Inspect the shared calendar and embedded payment screen.
04
Run automated checks
Use tools to locate potential failures. Verify results in context.
An automated score cannot establish conformance. Human judgement remains necessary.
05
Evaluate manually
Assess applicable criteria through keyboard use, zoom, reflow, forms, content inspection and appropriate assistive technologies.
Check the form after an error.
06
Document findings
Separate failures, passes, inapplicable and unresolved assessments. Provide steps and evidence.
A screenshot alone cannot explain focus behaviour.
07
Repair and retest
Prioritise impact and reach, assign owners and repeat checks after correction.
Inspect related components for regressions.
Example: checking a library reservation journey
Fictional scenario: a library reviews its reservation flow against WCAG 2.2 Level AA, including search, sign in, branch selection and confirmation. The evaluator records release and environment.
Imagine a scan flags an unlabelled selector, while keyboard testing reveals a modal that closes without restoring meaningful focus. The evaluator verifies applicable criteria before recording distinct failures. Inconvenience alone does not establish a violation.
The component owner repairs both issues and repeats the checks. Research with disabled participants separately investigates branch names and messages. These barriers and repairs are invented.
03 / BELOW THE SURFACE
Below the surface: coverage is part of the finding
A detailed report can still give false reassurance if its boundary is invisible.
COVERAGE
Which states could we not inspect?
Record unknowns and the access needed to resolve them.
CONSEQUENCE
What does this barrier prevent?
Describe the affected task and available alternatives.
CLAIM
What statement does our evidence support?
Keep sample results and product conformance distinct.
A report may omit a state nobody reached: a timeout, declined transaction or account recovery step. An untested state is unknown, not passed. Record blocked access and unavailable content.
Conformance includes full pages and complete processes. W3C’s methodology explains that selected subset evaluation alone cannot support an entire website claim. Distinguish evaluated evidence from wider claims.
Priority also requires judgement. A shared repair may remove many repeated issues, while a unique barrier prevents one essential task. Pair reach with task consequence and accessible alternatives rather than deciding by issue count.
Accessibility Audit (WCAG) companion worksheet
The original two page worksheet documents an accessibility review plan and findings review. It connects scope, coverage and target with barrier evidence, repair ownership and verification alongside criterion testing.
Practical tips
Record the exact state and environment needed to reproduce each barrier.
Review shared components and complete tasks together.
Include disabled people in research beyond technical conformance checks.
Common mistakes
Treating a clean automated scan as proof of accessibility.
Excluding difficult states while making a claim about the complete service.
Closing a finding after a code change without repeating the relevant evaluation.
What you’ll get
An evidence based account of assessed accessibility, with clear limitations and repair responsibilities. A finding is complete when its correction is verified, while wider conformance statements require evidence appropriate to their scope. Content updates can reopen repaired barriers, so include recurring checks in the ownership plan.