Blog

Online Accessibility Checker: How Effective Are They Really

by Rajesh K | Jan 25, 2026 | Accessibility Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 0 comments

In today’s digital-first environment, accessibility is no longer treated as a secondary enhancement or a discretionary feature. Instead, it is increasingly being recognized as a foundational indicator of software quality. Consequently, Accessibility Testing is now being embedded into mainstream Quality Assurance teams are now expected to validate not only functionality, performance, and security, but also inclusivity and regulatory compliance. As digital products continue to shape how people communicate, work, shop, and access essential services, expectations around accessibility have risen sharply. Legal enforcement of WCAG-based standards has intensified across regions. At the same time, ethical responsibility and brand reputation are being influenced by how inclusive digital experiences are perceived to be. Therefore, accessibility has moved from a niche concern into a mainstream QA obligation. In response to this growing responsibility, the Online Accessibility Checker has emerged as one of the most widely adopted solutions. These tools are designed to automatically scan web pages, identify accessibility violations, and generate reports aligned with WCAG success criteria. Because they are fast, repeatable, and relatively easy to integrate, they are often positioned as a shortcut to accessibility compliance.

However, a critical question must be addressed by every serious QA organization: How effective is an online accessibility checker when real-world usability is taken into account? While automation undoubtedly provides efficiency and scale, accessibility itself remains deeply contextual and human-centered. As a result, many high-impact accessibility issues remain undetected when testing relies exclusively on automated scans.

This blog has been written specifically for QA engineers, test leads, automation specialists, product managers, and engineering leaders. Throughout this guide, the real capabilities and limitations of online accessibility checkers will be examined in depth. In addition, commonly used tools will be explained along with their ideal applications in QA. Finally, a structured workflow will be presented to demonstrate how automated and manual accessibility testing should be combined to achieve defensible WCAG compliance and genuinely usable digital products.

Understanding the Online Accessibility Checker Landscape in QA

Before an online accessibility checker can be used effectively, the broader accessibility automation landscape must be clearly understood. In most professional QA environments, accessibility tools can be grouped into three primary categories. Each category supports a different phase of the QA lifecycle and delivers value in a distinct way.

CI/CD and Shift-Left Accessibility Testing Tools

To begin with, certain accessibility tools are designed to be embedded directly into development workflows and CI/CD pipelines. These tools are typically executed automatically during code commits, pull requests, or build processes.

Key characteristics include:

• Programmatic validation of WCAG rules
• Integration with unit tests, linters, and pipelines
• Automated pass/fail results during builds

QA value:
As a result, accessibility defects are detected early in the development lifecycle. Consequently, issues are prevented from progressing into staging or production environments, where remediation becomes significantly more expensive and disruptive.

Enterprise Accessibility Audit and Monitoring Platforms

In contrast, enterprise-grade accessibility platforms are designed for long-term monitoring and governance rather than rapid developer feedback. These tools are commonly used by organizations managing large and complex digital ecosystems.

Typical capabilities include:

• Full-site crawling across thousands of pages
• Centralized accessibility issue tracking
• Compliance dashboards and audit-ready reports

QA value:
Therefore, these platforms serve as a single source of truth for accessibility compliance. Progress can be tracked over time, and evidence can be produced during internal reviews, vendor audits, or legal inquiries.

Browser-Based Online Accessibility Checkers

Finally, browser extensions and online scanners are widely used during manual and exploratory testing activities. These tools operate directly within the browser and provide immediate visual feedback.

Common use cases include:

• Highlighting accessibility issues directly on the page
• Page-level analysis during manual testing
• Education and awareness for QA engineers

QA value:
Thus, these tools are particularly effective for understanding why an issue exists and how it affects users interacting with the interface.

Popular Online Accessibility Checker Tools and Their Uses in QA

axe-core / axe DevTools

Best used for:
Automated accessibility testing during development and CI/CD.

How it is used in QA:

• WCAG violations are detected programmatically
• Accessibility tests are executed as part of build pipelines
• Critical regressions are blocked before release

Why it matters:
Consequently, accessibility is treated as a core engineering concern rather than a late-stage compliance task. Over time, accessibility debt is reduced, and development teams gain faster feedback.

Google Lighthouse

Best used for:
Baseline accessibility scoring during build validation.

How it is used in QA:

• Accessibility scores are generated automatically
• Issues are surfaced alongside performance metrics
• Accessibility trends are monitored across releases

Why it matters:
Therefore, accessibility is evaluated as part of overall product quality rather than as an isolated requirement.

WAVE

Best used for:
Manual and exploratory accessibility testing.

How it is used in QA:

• Visual overlays highlight accessibility errors and warnings
• Structural, contrast, and labeling issues are exposed
• Contextual understanding of issues is improved

Why it matters:
As a result, QA engineers are better equipped to explain real user impact to developers, designers, and stakeholders.

Siteimprove

Best used for:
Enterprise-level accessibility monitoring and compliance reporting.

How it is used in QA:

• Scheduled full-site scans are performed
• Accessibility defects are tracked centrally
• Compliance documentation is generated for audits

Why it matters:
Thus, long-term accessibility governance is supported, especially in regulated or high-risk industries.

Pa11y

Best used for:
Scripted accessibility regression testing.

How it is used in QA:

• Command-line scans are automated in CI/CD pipelines
• Reports are generated in structured formats
• Repeatable checks are enforced across releases

Why it matters:
Hence, accessibility testing becomes consistent, predictable, and scalable.

What an Online Accessibility Checker Can Reliably Detect

It must be acknowledged that online accessibility checkers perform extremely well when it comes to programmatically determinable issues. In practice, approximately 30–40% of WCAG success criteria can be reliably validated through automation alone.

Commonly detected issues include:

• Missing or empty alternative text
• Insufficient color contrast
• Missing form labels
• Improper heading hierarchy
• Invalid or missing ARIA attributes

Because these issues follow deterministic rules, automated tools are highly effective at identifying them quickly and consistently. As a result, online accessibility checkers are invaluable for baseline compliance, regression prevention, and large-scale scanning across digital properties.

What an Online Accessibility Checker Cannot Detect

Despite their strengths, significant limitations must be clearly acknowledged. Importantly, 60–70% of accessibility issues cannot be detected automatically. These issues require human judgment, contextual understanding, and experiential validation.

Cognitive Load and Task Flow

Although elements may be technically compliant, workflows may still be confusing or overwhelming. Instructions may lack clarity, error recovery may be difficult, and task sequences may not follow a logical flow. Therefore, complete user journeys must be reviewed manually.

Screen Reader Narrative Quality

While automation can confirm the presence of labels and roles, it cannot evaluate whether the spoken output makes sense. Consequently, manual testing with screen readers is essential to validate narrative coherence and information hierarchy.

Complex Interactive Components

Custom widgets, dynamic menus, data tables, and charts often behave incorrectly in subtle ways. As a result, component-level testing is required to validate keyboard interaction, focus management, and state announcements.

Visual Meaning Beyond Contrast

Although contrast ratios can be measured automatically, contextual meaning cannot. Color may be used as the sole indicator of status or error. Therefore, visual inspection is required to ensure information is conveyed in multiple ways.

Keyboard-Only Usability

Keyboard traps may be detected by automation; however, navigation efficiency and user fatigue cannot. Hence, full keyboard-only testing must be performed manually.

Manual vs Automated Accessibility Testing: A Practical Comparison

A Strategic QA Workflow Using an Online Accessibility Checker

Rather than being used in isolation, an online accessibility checker should be embedded into a structured, multi-phase QA workflow.

• Phase 1: Shift-Left Development Testing
  Accessibility checks are enforced during development, and critical violations block code merges.
• Phase 2: CI/CD Build Validation
  Automated scans are executed on every build, and accessibility trends are monitored.
• Phase 3: Manual and Exploratory Accessibility Testing
  Keyboard navigation, screen reader testing, visual inspection, and cognitive review are performed.
• Phase 4: Regression Monitoring and Reporting
  Accessibility issues are tracked over time, and audit documentation is produced.

Why Automation Alone Is Insufficient

Consider a checkout form that passes all automated accessibility checks. Labels are present, contrast ratios meet requirements, and no errors are reported. However, during manual screen reader testing, error messages are announced out of context, and focus jumps unpredictably. As a result, users relying on assistive technologies are unable to complete the checkout process.

This issue would not be detected by an online accessibility checker alone, yet it represents a critical accessibility failure.

Conclusion

Although automation continues to advance, accessibility remains inherently human. Therefore, QA expertise cannot be replaced by tools alone. The most effective QA teams use online accessibility checkers for efficiency and scale while relying on human judgment for empathy, context, and real usability.

Frequently Asked Questions

AxeCore Playwright in Practice

by Rajesh K | Dec 24, 2025 | Accessibility Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 1 comment

Accessibility is no longer a checkbox item or something teams worry about just before an audit. For modern digital products, especially those serving enterprises, governments, or regulated industries, accessibility has become a legal obligation, a usability requirement, and a business risk factor. At the same time, development teams are shipping faster than ever. Manual accessibility testing alone cannot keep up with weekly or even daily releases. This is where AxeCore Playwright enters the picture. By combining Playwright, a modern browser automation tool, with axe-core, a widely trusted WCAG rules engine, teams can integrate accessibility checks directly into their existing test pipelines.

But here is the truth that often gets lost in tool-centric discussions: Automation improves accessibility only when its limitations are clearly understood.This blog walks through a real AxeCore Playwright setup, explains what the automation actually validates, analyzes a real accessibility report, and shows how this approach aligns with government accessibility regulations worldwide without pretending automation can replace human testing.

Why AxeCore Playwright Fits Real Development Workflows

Many accessibility tools fail not because they are inaccurate, but because they do not fit naturally into day-to-day engineering work. AxeCore Playwright succeeds largely because it feels like an extension of what teams are already doing.

Playwright is built for modern web applications. It handles JavaScript-heavy pages, dynamic content, and cross-browser behavior reliably. Axe-core complements this by applying well-researched, WCAG-mapped rules to the DOM at runtime.

Together, they allow teams to catch accessibility issues:

• Early in development, not at the end
• Automatically, without separate test suites
• Repeatedly, to prevent regressions

This makes AxeCore Playwright especially effective for shift-left accessibility, where issues are identified while code is still being written, not after users complain or audits fail.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that this combination focuses on technical correctness, not user experience. That distinction shapes everything that follows.

The Accessibility Automation Stack Used

The real-world setup used in this project is intentionally simple and production-friendly. It includes Playwright for browser automation, axe-core as the accessibility rule engine, and axe-html-reporter to convert raw results into readable HTML reports.

The accessibility scope is limited to WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1, Levels A and AA, which is important because these are the levels referenced by most government regulations worldwide.

This stack works extremely well for:

• Detecting common WCAG violations
• Preventing accessibility regressions
• Providing developers with fast feedback
• Generating evidence for audits

However, it is not designed to validate how a real user experiences the interface with a screen reader, keyboard, or other assistive technologies. That boundary is deliberate and unavoidable.

Sample AxeCore Playwright Code From a Real Project

One of the biggest advantages of AxeCore Playwright is that accessibility tests do not live in isolation. They sit alongside functional tests and reuse the same architecture.

Page Object Model With Accessible Selectors

import { Page, Locator } from "@playwright/test";

export class HomePage {
  readonly servicesMenu: Locator;
  readonly industriesMenu: Locator;

  constructor(page: Page) {
    this.servicesMenu = page.getByRole("link", { name: "Services" });
    this.industriesMenu = page.getByRole("link", { name: "Industries" });
  }
}

This approach matters more than it appears at first glance. By using getByRole() instead of CSS selectors or XPath, the automation relies on semantic roles and accessible names. These are the same signals used by screen readers.

As a result, test code quietly encourages better accessibility practices across the application. At the same time, it’s important to be realistic: automation can confirm that a role and label exist, but it cannot judge whether those labels make sense when read aloud.

Configuring axe-core for Meaningful WCAG Results

One of the most common reasons accessibility automation fails inside teams is noisy output. When reports contain hundreds of low-value warnings, developers stop paying attention.

This setup avoids that problem by explicitly filtering axe-core rules to WCAG-only checks:

import AxeBuilder from "@axe-core/playwright";

const makeAxeBuilder = (page) =>
  new AxeBuilder({ page }).withTags([
    "wcag2a",
    "wcag2aa",
    "wcag21a",
    "wcag21aa",
  ]);

By doing this, the scan focuses only on the success criteria recognized by government and regulatory bodies. Experimental or advisory rules are excluded, which keeps reports focused and credible.

For CI/CD pipelines, this focus is essential. Accessibility automation must produce clear signals, not noise.

Running the Accessibility Scan: What Happens Behind the Scenes

Executing the scan is straightforward:

const accessibilityScanResults = await makeAxeBuilder(page).analyze();

When this runs, axe-core parses the DOM, applies WCAG rule logic, and produces a structured JSON result. It evaluates things like color contrast, form labels, ARIA usage, and document structure.

What it does not do is equally important. The scan does not simulate keyboard navigation, does not listen to screen reader output, and does not assess whether the interface is intuitive or understandable. It evaluates rules, not experiences.

Understanding this distinction prevents false assumptions about compliance.

Generating a Human-Readable Accessibility Report

The raw results are converted into an HTML report using axe-html-reporter. This step is critical because accessibility should not live only in JSON files or CI logs.

HTML reports allow:

• Developers can quickly see what failed and why
• Product managers need to understand severity and impact
• Auditors to review evidence without technical context

This is where accessibility stops being “just QA work” and becomes a shared responsibility.

What the Real Accessibility Report Shows

The uploaded report covers the Codoid homepage and provides a realistic snapshot of what accessibility automation finds in practice.

At a high level, the scan detected two violations, both marked as serious, while passing 29 checks and flagging several checks as incomplete. This balance is typical for mature but not perfect applications.

The key takeaway here is not the number of issues, but the type of issues automation is good at detecting.

Serious WCAG Violation: Color Contrast (1.4.3)

Both violations in the report relate to insufficient color contrast in testimonial text elements. The affected text appears visually subtle, but the contrast ratio measured by axe-core is 3.54:1, which falls below the WCAG AA requirement of 4.5:1.

This kind of issue directly affects users with low vision or color blindness and can make content difficult to read in certain environments. Because contrast ratios are mathematically measurable, automation excels at catching these problems.

In this case, AxeCore Playwright:

• Identified the exact DOM elements
• Calculated precise contrast ratios
• Provided clear remediation guidance

This is exactly the type of accessibility issue that should be caught automatically and early.

Passed and Incomplete Checks: Reading Between the Lines

The report also shows 29 passed checks, covering areas such as ARIA attributes, image alt text, form labels, document language, and structural keyboard requirements. These passes are quite successful in preventing regressions over time.

At the same time, 21 checks were marked as incomplete, primarily related to color contrast under dynamic conditions. Axe-core flags checks as incomplete when it cannot confidently evaluate them due to styling changes, overlays, or contextual factors.

This honesty is a strength. Instead of guessing, the tool clearly signals where manual testing is required.

Where AxeCore Playwright Stops and Humans Must Take Over

Even with a clean report, accessibility can still fail real users. This is where teams must resist the temptation to treat automation results as final.

Automation cannot validate how a screen reader announces content or whether that announcement makes sense. It cannot determine whether the reading order feels logical or whether keyboard navigation feels intuitive. It also cannot assess cognitive accessibility, such as whether instructions are clear or error messages are understandable.

In practice, accessibility automation answers the question:
“Does this meet the technical rules?”

Manual testing answers a different question:
“Can a real person actually use this?”

Both are necessary.

Government Accessibility Compliance: How This Fits Legally

Most government regulations worldwide reference WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard for digital accessibility.

In the United States, ADA-related cases consistently point to WCAG 2.1 AA as the expected benchmark, while Section 508 explicitly mandates WCAG 2.0 AA for federal systems. The European Union’s EN 301 549 standard, the UK Public Sector Accessibility Regulations, Canada’s Accessible Canada Act, and Australia’s DDA all align closely with WCAG 2.1 AA.

AxeCore Playwright supports these regulations by:

• Automatically validating WCAG-mapped technical criteria
• Providing repeatable, documented evidence
• Supporting continuous monitoring through CI/CD

However, no government accepts automation-only compliance. Manual testing with assistive technologies is still required to demonstrate real accessibility.

The Compliance Reality Most Teams Miss

Government regulations do not require zero automated violations. What they require is a reasonable, documented effort to identify and remove accessibility barriers.

AxeCore Playwright provides strong technical evidence. Manual testing provides experiential validation. Together, they form a defensible, audit-ready accessibility strategy.

Final Thoughts: Accessibility Automation With Integrity

AxeCore Playwright is one of the most effective tools available for scaling accessibility testing in modern development environments. The real report demonstrates its value clearly: precise findings, meaningful coverage, and honest limitations. The teams that succeed with accessibility are not the ones chasing perfect automation scores. They are the ones who understand where automation ends, where humans add value, and how to combine both into a sustainable process. Accessibility done right is not about tools alone. It’s about removing real barriers for real users and being able to prove it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Ensure your application aligns with WCAG, ADA, Section 508, and global accessibility regulations without slowing down releases.

Talk to an Accessibility Expert

PDF Accessibility Testing: A Complete Guide

by Rajesh K | Dec 11, 2025 | Accessibility Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 1 comment

As organizations continue shifting toward digital documentation, whether for onboarding, training, contracts, reports, or customer communication, the need for accessible PDFs has become more important than ever. Today, accessibility isn’t just a “nice to have”; rather, it is a legal, ethical, and operational requirement that ensures every user, including those with disabilities, can seamlessly interact with your content. This is why Accessibility testing and PDF accessibility testing has become a critical process for organizations that want to guarantee equal access, maintain compliance, and provide a smooth reading experience across all digital touchpoints. Moreover, when accessibility is addressed from the start, documents become easier to manage, update, and distribute across teams, customers, and global audiences.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore what PDF accessibility truly means, why compliance is crucial across different GEO regions, how to identify and fix common accessibility issues, and which tools can help streamline the review process. By the end of this blog, you will have a clear, actionable roadmap for building accessible, compliant, and user-friendly PDFs at scale.

Understanding PDF Accessibility and Why It Matters

What Makes a PDF Document Accessible?

An accessible PDF goes far beyond text that simply appears readable. Instead, it relies on an internal structure that enables assistive technologies such as screen readers, Braille displays, speech-to-text tools, and magnifiers to interpret content correctly. To achieve this, a PDF must include several key components:

• A complete tag tree representing headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, and figures
• A logical reading order that reflects how content should naturally flow
• Rich metadata, including document title and language settings
• Meaningful alternative text for images, diagrams, icons, and charts
• Properly labeled form fields
• Adequate color contrast between text and background
• Consistent document structure that enhances navigation and comprehension

When these elements are applied thoughtfully, the PDF becomes perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust, aligning with the four core WCAG principles.

Why PDF Accessibility Is Crucial for Compliance (U.S. and Global)

Ensuring accessibility isn’t optional; it is a legal requirement across major markets.

United States Requirements

Organizations must comply with:

• Section 508 – Mandatory for federal agencies and any business supplying digital content to them
• ADA Title II & III – Applies to public entities and public-facing organizations
• WCAG 2.1 / 2.2 – Internationally accepted accessibility guidelines

Non-compliance results in:

• Potential lawsuits
• Negative press and brand damage
• Government contract ineligibility
• Lost customer trust

Global Accessibility Expectations

Beyond the U.S., accessibility has become a global priority:

• European Union – EN 301 549 and the Web Accessibility Directive
• Canada – Accessible Canada Act (ACA) + provincial regulations
• United Kingdom – Equality Act + WCAG adoption
• Australia – Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
• India & APAC Regions – Increasing WCAG reliance

Consequently, organizations that invest in accessibility position themselves for broader global reach and smoother GEO compliance.

Setting Up a PDF Accessibility Testing Checklist

Because PDF remediation involves both structural and content-level requirements, creating a standardized checklist ensures consistency and reduces errors across teams. With a checklist, testers can follow a repeatable workflow instead of relying on memory.

A strong PDF accessibility checklist includes:

• Document metadata: Title, language, subject, and author
• Selectable and searchable text: No scanned pages without OCR
• Heading hierarchy: Clear, nested H1 → H2 → H3 structure
• Logical tagging: Paragraphs, lists, tables, and figures are properly tagged; No “Span soup” or incorrect tag types
• Reading order: Sequential and aligned with the visual layout; Essential for multi-column layouts
• Alternative text for images: Concise, accurate, and contextual alt text
• Descriptive links: Avoid “click here”; use intent-based labels
• Form field labeling: Tooltips, labels, tab order, and required field indicators
• Color and contrast compliance: WCAG AA standards (4.5:1 for body text)
• Automated and manual validation: Required for both compliance and real-world usability

This checklist forms the backbone of an effective PDF accessibility testing program.

Common Accessibility Issues Found During PDF Testing

During accessibility audits, several recurring issues emerge. Understanding them helps organizations prioritize fixes more effectively.

• Incorrect Reading Order
  Screen readers may jump between sections or read content out of context when the reading order is not defined correctly. This is especially common in multi-column documents, brochures, or forms.
• Missing or Incorrect Tags
  Common issues include:
  • Untagged text
  • Incorrect heading levels
  • Mis-tagged lists
  • Tables tagged as paragraphs
• Missing Alternative Text
  Charts, images, diagrams, and icons require descriptive alt text. Without it, visually impaired users miss critical information.
• Decorative Images Not Marked as Decorative
  If decorative elements are not properly tagged, screen readers announce them unnecessarily, leading to cognitive overload.
• Unlabeled Form Fields
  Users cannot complete forms accurately if fields are not labeled or if tooltips are missing.
• Poor Color Contrast
  Low-contrast text is difficult to read for users with visual impairments or low vision.
• Inconsistent Table Structures
  Tables often lack:
  • Header cells
  • Complex table markup
  • Clear associations between rows and columns

Manual vs. Automated PDF Accessibility Testing

Although automated tools are valuable for quickly detecting errors, they cannot fully interpret context or user experience. Therefore, both approaches are essential.

By integrating both methods, organizations achieve more accurate and reliable results.

Best PDF Accessibility Testing Tools

Adobe Acrobat Pro

Adobe Acrobat Pro remains the top choice for enterprise-level PDF accessibility remediation. Key capabilities include:

• Accessibility Checker reports
• Detailed tag tree editor
• Reading Order tool
• Alt text panel
• Automated quick fixes
• Screen reader simulation

These features make Acrobat indispensable for thorough remediation.

Best Free and Open-Source Tools

For teams seeking cost-efficient solutions, the following tools provide excellent validation features:

• PAC 3 (PDF Accessibility Checker)
  Leading free PDF/UA checker
  Offers deep structure analysis and screen-reader preview
• CommonLook PDF Validator
  Rule-based WCAG and Section 508 validation
• axe DevTools
  Helps detect accessibility issues in PDFs embedded in web apps
• Siteimprove Accessibility Checker
  Scans PDFs linked from websites and identifies issues

Although these tools do not fully replace manual review or Acrobat Pro, they significantly improve testing efficiency.

How to Remediate PDF Accessibility Issues

Improving Screen Reader Compatibility

Screen readers rely heavily on structure. Therefore, remediation should focus on:

• Rebuilding or editing the tag tree
• Establishing heading hierarchy
• Fixing reading order
• Adding meaningful alt text
• Applying OCR to image-only PDFs
• Labeling form fields properly

Additionally, testing with NVDA, JAWS, or VoiceOver ensures the document behaves correctly for real users.

Ensuring WCAG and Section 508 Compliance

To achieve compliance:

• Align with WCAG 2.1 AA guidelines
• Use official Section 508 criteria for U.S. government readiness
• Validate using at least two tools (e.g., Acrobat + PAC 3)
• Document fixes for audit trails
• Publish accessibility statements for public-facing documents

Compliance not only protects organizations legally but also boosts trust and usability.

Why Accessibility Matters

Imagine a financial institution releasing an important loan application PDF. The document includes form fields, instructions, and supporting diagrams. On the surface, everything looks functional. However:

• The fields are unlabeled
• The reading order jumps unpredictably
• Diagrams lack alt text
• Instructions are not tagged properly

A screen reader user attempting to complete the form would hear:

“Edit… edit… edit…” with no guidance.

Consequently, the user cannot apply independently and may abandon the process entirely. After proper remediation, the same PDF becomes:

• Fully navigable
• Informative
• Screen reader friendly
• Easy to complete without assistance

This example highlights how accessibility testing transforms user experience and strengthens brand credibility.

Benefits Comparison Table

Conclusion

PDF Accessibility Testing is now a fundamental part of digital content creation. As organizations expand globally and digital communication increases, accessible documents are essential for compliance, usability, and inclusivity. By combining automated tools, manual testing, structured remediation, and ongoing governance, teams can produce documents that are readable, navigable, and user-friendly for everyone.

When your documents are accessible, you enhance customer trust, reduce legal risk, and strengthen your brand’s commitment to equal access. Start building accessibility into your PDF workflow today to create a more inclusive digital ecosystem for all users.

Frequently Asked Questions

Ensure every PDF you publish meets global accessibility standards.

Schedule a Consultation

Lighthouse Accessibility: Simple Setup and Audit Guide

by Rajesh K | Dec 4, 2025 | Accessibility Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 0 comments

Web accessibility is no longer something teams can afford to overlook; it has become a fundamental requirement for any digital experience. Millions of users rely on assistive technologies such as screen readers, alternative input devices, and voice navigation. Consequently, ensuring digital inclusivity is not just a technical enhancement; rather, it is a responsibility that every developer, tester, product manager, and engineering leader must take seriously. Additionally, accessibility risks extend beyond usability. Non-compliant websites can face legal exposure, lose customers, and damage their brand reputation. Therefore, building accessible experiences from the ground up is both a strategic and ethical imperative.Fortunately, accessibility testing does not have to be overwhelming. This is where Google Lighthouse accessibility audits come into play.

Lighthouse makes accessibility evaluation significantly easier by providing automated, WCAG-aligned audits directly within Chrome. With minimal setup, teams can quickly run assessments, uncover common accessibility gaps, and receive actionable guidance on how to fix them. Even better, Lighthouse offers structured scoring, easy-to-read reports, and deep code-level insights that help teams move steadily toward compliance.

In this comprehensive guide, we will walk through everything you need to know about Lighthouse accessibility testing. Not only will we explain how Lighthouse works, but we will also explore how to run audits, how to understand your score, how to fix issues, and how to integrate Lighthouse into your development and testing workflow. Moreover, we will compare Lighthouse with other accessibility tools, helping your QA and development teams adopt a well-rounded accessibility strategy. Ultimately, this guide ensures you can transform Lighthouse’s recommendations into real, meaningful improvements that benefit all users.

Getting Started with Lighthouse Accessibility Testing

To begin, Lighthouse is a built-in auditing tool available directly in Chrome DevTools. Because no installation is needed when using Chrome DevTools, Lighthouse becomes extremely convenient for beginners, testers, and developers who want quick accessibility insights. Lighthouse evaluates several categories: accessibility, performance, SEO, and best practices, although in this guide, we focus primarily on the Lighthouse accessibility dimension.

Furthermore, teams can run tests in either Desktop or Mobile mode. This flexibility ensures that accessibility issues specific to device size or interaction patterns are identified. Lighthouse’s accessibility engine audits webpages against automated WCAG-based rules and then generates a score between 0 and 100. Each issue Lighthouse identifies includes explanations, code snippets, impacted elements, and recommended solutions, making it easier to translate findings into improvements.

In addition to browser-based evaluations, Lighthouse can also be executed automatically through CI/CD pipelines using Lighthouse CI. Consequently, teams can incorporate accessibility testing into their continuous development lifecycle and catch issues early before they reach production.

Setting Up Lighthouse in Chrome and Other Browsers

Lighthouse is already built into Chrome DevTools, but you can also install it as an extension if you prefer a quick, one-click workflow.

How to Install the Lighthouse Extension in Chrome

• Open the Chrome Web Store and search for “Lighthouse.”
• Select the Lighthouse extension.
• Click Add to Chrome.
• Confirm by selecting Add Extension.

Although Lighthouse works seamlessly in Chrome, setup and support vary across other browsers:

• Microsoft Edge includes Lighthouse directly inside DevTools under the “Audits” or “Lighthouse” tab.
• Firefox uses the Gecko engine and therefore does not support Lighthouse, as it relies on Chrome-specific APIs.
• Brave and Opera (both Chromium-based) support Lighthouse in DevTools or via the Chrome extension, following the same steps as Chrome.
• On Mac, the installation and usage steps for all Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera) are the same as on Windows.

This flexibility allows teams to run Lighthouse accessibility audits in environments they prefer, although Chrome continues to provide the most reliable and complete experience.

Running Your First Lighthouse Accessibility Audit

Once Lighthouse is set up, running your first accessibility audit becomes incredibly straightforward.

Steps to Run a Lighthouse Accessibility Audit

• Open the webpage you want to test in Google Chrome.
• Right-click anywhere on the page and select Inspect, or press F12.
• Navigate to the Lighthouse panel.
• Select the Accessibility checkbox under Categories.
• Choose your testing mode:
  • Desktop (PSI Frontend—pagespeed.web.dev)
  • Mobile (Lighthouse Viewer—googlechrome.github.io)
• Click Analyze Page Load.

Lighthouse will then scan your page and generate a comprehensive report. This report becomes your baseline accessibility health score and provides structured groupings of passed, failed, and not-applicable audits. Consequently, you gain immediate visibility into where your website stands in terms of accessibility compliance.

Key Accessibility Checks Performed by Lighthouse

Lighthouse evaluates accessibility using automated rules referencing WCAG guidelines. Although automated audits do not replace manual testing, they are extremely effective at catching frequent and high-impact accessibility barriers.

High-Impact Accessibility Checks Include:

• Color contrast verification
• Correct ARIA roles and attributes
• Descriptive and meaningful alt text for images
• Keyboard navigability
• Proper heading hierarchy (H1–H6)
• Form field labels
• Focusable interactive elements
• Clear and accessible button/link names

Common Accessibility Issues Detected in Lighthouse Reports

During testing, Lighthouse often highlights issues that developers frequently overlook. These include structural, semantic, and interactive problems that meaningfully impact accessibility.

Typical Issues Identified:

• Missing list markup
• Insufficient color contrast between text and background
• Incorrect heading hierarchy
• Missing or incorrect H1 tag
• Invalid or unpermitted ARIA attributes
• Missing alt text on images
• Interactive elements that cannot be accessed using a keyboard
• Unlabeled or confusing form fields
• Focusable elements that are ARIA-hidden

Because Lighthouse provides code references for each issue, teams can resolve them quickly and systematically.

Interpreting Your Lighthouse Accessibility Score

Lighthouse scores reflect the number of accessibility audits your page passes. The rating ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better compliance.

The results are grouped into

• Passes
• Not Applicable
• Failed Audits

While Lighthouse audits are aligned with many WCAG 2.1 rules, they only cover checks that can be automated. Thus, manual validation such as keyboard-only testing, screen reader exploration, and logical reading order verification remains essential.

What To Do After Receiving a Low Score

• Review the failed audits.
• Prioritize the highest-impact issues first (e.g., contrast, labels, ARIA errors).
• Address code-level problems such as missing alt attributes or incorrect roles.
• Re-run Lighthouse to validate improvements.
• Conduct manual accessibility testing for completeness.

Lighthouse is a starting point, not a full accessibility certification. Nevertheless, it remains an invaluable tool in identifying issues early and guiding remediation efforts.

Improving Website Accessibility Using Lighthouse Insights

One of Lighthouse’s strengths is that it offers actionable, specific recommendations alongside each failing audit.

Typical Recommendations Include:

• Add meaningful alt text to images.
• Ensure buttons and links have descriptive, accessible names.
• Increase contrast ratios for text and UI components.
• Add labels and clear instructions to form fields.
• Remove invalid or redundant ARIA attributes.
• Correct heading structure (e.g., start with H1, maintain sequential order).

Because Lighthouse provides “Learn More” links to relevant Google documentation, developers and testers can quickly understand both the reasoning behind each issue and the steps for remediation.

Integrating Lighthouse Findings Into Your Workflow

To maximize the value of Lighthouse, teams should integrate it directly into development, testing, and CI/CD processes.

Recommended Workflow Strategies

• Run Lighthouse audits during development.
• Include accessibility checks in code reviews.
• Automate Lighthouse accessibility tests using Lighthouse CI.
• Establish a baseline accessibility score (e.g., always maintain >90).
• Use Lighthouse reports to guide UX improvements and compliance tracking.

By integrating accessibility checks early and continuously, teams avoid bottlenecks that arise when accessibility issues are caught too late in the development cycle. In turn, accessibility becomes ingrained in your engineering culture rather than an afterthought.

Comparing Lighthouse to Other Accessibility Tools

Although Lighthouse is powerful, it is primarily designed for quick automated audits. Therefore, it is important to compare it with alternative accessibility testing tools.

Lighthouse Strengths

• Built directly into Chrome
• Fast and easy to use
• Ideal for quick audits
• Evaluates accessibility along with performance, SEO, and best practices

Other Tools (Axe, WAVE, Tenon, and Accessibility Insights) Offer:

• More extensive rule sets
• Better support for manual testing
• Deeper contrast analysis
• Assistive-technology compatibility checks

Thus, Lighthouse acts as an excellent first step, while other platforms provide more comprehensive accessibility verification.

Coverage of Guidelines and Standards

Although Lighthouse checks many WCAG 2.0/2.1 items, it does not evaluate every accessibility requirement.

Lighthouse Does Not Check:

• Logical reading order
• Complex keyboard trap scenarios
• Dynamic content announcements
• Screen reader usability
• Video captioning
• Semantic meaning or contextual clarity

Therefore, for complete accessibility compliance, Lighthouse should always be combined with manual testing and additional accessibility tools.

Summary Comparison Table

Example

Imagine a team launching a new marketing landing page. On the surface, the page looks visually appealing, but Lighthouse immediately highlights several accessibility issues:

• Insufficient contrast in primary buttons
• Missing alt text for decorative images
• Incorrect heading order (H3 used before H1)
• A form with unlabeled input fields

By following Lighthouse’s recommendations, the team fixes these issues within minutes. As a result, they improve screen reader compatibility, enhance readability, and comply more closely with WCAG standards. This example shows how Lighthouse helps catch hidden accessibility problems before they become costly.

Conclusion

Lighthouse accessibility testing is one of the fastest and most accessible ways for teams to improve their website’s inclusiveness. With its automated checks, intuitive interface, and actionable recommendations, Lighthouse empowers developers, testers, and product teams to identify accessibility gaps early and effectively. Nevertheless, Lighthouse should be viewed as one essential component of a broader accessibility strategy. To reach full WCAG compliance, teams must combine Lighthouse with manual testing, screen reader evaluation, and deeper diagnostic tools like Axe or Accessibility Insights.

By integrating Lighthouse accessibility audits into your everyday workflow, you create digital experiences that are not only visually appealing and high performing but also usable by all users regardless of ability. Now is the perfect time to strengthen your accessibility process and move toward truly inclusive design.

Frequently Asked Questions

Improve your website’s accessibility with ease. Get a Lighthouse accessibility review and expert recommendations to boost compliance and user experience.

Request Expert Review

Section 508 Compliance Explained

by Rajesh K | Nov 24, 2025 | Accessibility Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 5 comments

As federal agencies and their technology partners increasingly rely on digital tools to deliver services, the importance of accessibility has never been greater. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal organizations and any vendors developing technology for them to ensure equal access to information and communication technologies (ICT) for people with disabilities. This includes everything from websites and mobile apps to PDFs, training videos, kiosks, and enterprise applications. Because accessibility is now an essential expectation rather than a nice-to-have, teams must verify that their digital products work for users with a wide range of abilities. This is where Accessibility Testing becomes crucial. It helps ensure that people who rely on assistive technologies such as screen readers, magnifiers, voice navigation tools, or switch devices can navigate, understand, and use digital content without barriers.

However, many teams still find Section 508 and accessibility requirements overwhelming. They may be unsure which standards apply, which tools to use, or how to identify issues that automated scans alone cannot detect. Accessibility also requires collaboration across design, development, QA, procurement, and management, making it necessary to embed accessibility into every stage of the digital lifecycle rather than treating it as a last-minute task. Fortunately, Section 508 compliance becomes far more manageable with a clear, structured approach. This guide explains what the standards require, how to test effectively, and how to build a sustainable accessibility process that supports long-term digital inclusiveness.

What Is Section 508?

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies and organizations working with them to ensure that their electronic and information technology (EIT) is accessible to people with disabilities. This includes users with visual, auditory, cognitive, neurological, or mobility impairments. The standard ensures that digital content is perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust, four core principles borrowed from WCAG.

The 2018 “Section 508 Refresh” aligned U.S. federal accessibility requirements with WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA, though many organizations now aim for WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 for better future readiness.

What Section 508 Compliance Covers (Expanded)

Websites and web applications: This includes all public-facing sites, intranet portals, login-based dashboards, and SaaS tools used by federal employees or citizens. Each must provide accessible navigation, content, forms, and interactive elements.

PDFs and digital documents: Common formats like PDF, Word, PowerPoint, and Excel must include tagging, correct reading order, accessible tables, alt text for images, and proper structured headings.

Software applications: Desktop, mobile, and enterprise software must support keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, logical focus order, and textual equivalents for all visual elements.

Multimedia content: Videos, webinars, animations, and audio recordings must include synchronized captions, transcripts, and audio descriptions where needed.

Hardware and kiosks: Physical devices such as kiosks, ATMs, and digital signage must provide tactile access, audio output, clear instructions, and predictable controls designed for users with diverse abilities.

Why Test for Section 508 Compliance?

Testing for Section 508 compliance is essential not only for meeting legal requirements but also for enhancing digital experiences for all users. Below are expanded explanations of the key reasons:

1. Prevent legal challenges and costly litigation

Ensuring accessibility early in development reduces the risk of complaints, investigations, and remediation orders that can delay launches and strain budgets. Compliance minimizes organizational risk and demonstrates a proactive commitment to inclusion.

2. Improve user experience for people with disabilities

Accessible design ensures that users with visual, auditory, cognitive, or mobility impairments can fully interact with digital tools. For instance, alt text helps blind users understand images, while keyboard operability allows people who cannot use a mouse to navigate interfaces effectively.

3. Enhance usability and SEO for all users

Many accessibility improvements, such as structured headings, descriptive link labels, or optimized keyboard navigation, benefit everyone, including users on mobile devices, people multitasking, or those with temporary impairments.

4. Reach broader audiences

Accessible content allows organizations to serve a more diverse population. This is particularly important for public-sector organizations that interact with millions of citizens, including elderly users and people with varying abilities.

5. Ensure consistent user-centered design

Accessibility encourages design practices that emphasize clarity, simplicity, and reliability, qualities that improve overall digital experience and reduce friction for all users.

Key Components of Section 508 Testing

1. Automated Accessibility Testing

Automated tools quickly scan large volumes of pages and documents to detect common accessibility barriers. While they do not catch every issue, they help teams identify recurring patterns and reduce the manual testing workload.

What automated tools typically detect:

• Missing alt text: Tools flag images without alternative text that screen reader users rely on to understand visual content. Automation highlights both missing and suspiciously short alt text for further review.
• Low color contrast: Automated tests measure whether text meets WCAG contrast ratios. Poor contrast makes reading difficult for users with low vision or color vision deficiencies.
• Invalid HTML markup: Errors like missing end tags or duplicated IDs can confuse assistive technologies and disrupt navigation for screen reader users.
• Improper heading structure: Tools can detect skipped levels or illogical heading orders, which disrupt comprehension and navigation for AT users.
• ARIA misuse: Automation identifies incorrect use of ARIA attributes that may mislead assistive technologies or create inconsistent user experiences.

Automated testing is fast and broad, making it an ideal first layer of accessibility evaluation. However, it must be paired with manual and assistive technology testing to ensure full Section 508 compliance.

2. Manual Accessibility Testing

Manual testing validates whether digital tools align with WCAG, Section 508, and real-world usability expectations. Because automation catches only a portion of accessibility issues, manual reviewers fill the gaps.

What manual testing includes:

• Keyboard-only navigation: Testers verify that every interactive element, including buttons, menus, forms, and pop-ups, can be accessed and activated using only the keyboard. This ensures users who cannot use a mouse can fully navigate the interface.
• Logical reading order: Manual testers confirm that content flows in a sensible order across different screen sizes and orientations. This is essential for both visual comprehension and screen reader accuracy.
• Screen reader compatibility: Reviewers check whether labels, instructions, headings, and interactive components are announced properly by tools like NVDA, JAWS, and VoiceOver.
• Proper link descriptions and form labels: Manual testing ensures that links make sense out of context and form fields have clear labels, so users with disabilities understand the purpose of each control.

Manual testing is especially important for dynamic, custom, or interactive components like modals, dropdowns, and complex form areas where automated tests fall short.

3. Assistive Technology (AT) Testing

AT testing verifies whether digital content works effectively with the tools many people with disabilities rely on.

Tools used for AT testing:

• Screen readers: These tools convert digital text into speech or Braille output. Testing ensures that all elements, menus, images, and form controls are accessible and properly announced.
• Screen magnifiers: Magnifiers help users with low vision enlarge content. Testers check whether interfaces remain usable and readable when magnified.
• Voice navigation tools: Systems like Dragon NaturallySpeaking allow users to control computers using voice commands, so interfaces must respond to verbal actions clearly and consistently.
• Switch devices: These tools support users with limited mobility by enabling navigation with single-switch inputs. AT testing ensures interfaces do not require complex physical actions.

AT testing is critical because it reveals how real users interact with digital products, exposing barriers that automation and manual review alone may overlook.

4. Document Accessibility Testing

Digital documents are among the most overlooked areas of Section 508 compliance. Many PDFs and Microsoft Office files remain inaccessible due to formatting issues.

Document accessibility requirements (expanded):

• Tags and proper structure: Documents must include semantic tags for headings, paragraphs, lists, and tables so screen readers can interpret them correctly.
• Accessible tables and lists: Tables require clear header rows and properly associated cells, and lists must use correct structural markup to convey hierarchy.
• Descriptive image alt text: Images that convey meaning must include descriptions that allow users with visual impairments to understand their purpose.
• Correct reading order: The reading order must match the visual order so screen readers present content logically.
• Bookmarks: Long PDFs require bookmarks to help users navigate large amounts of information quickly and efficiently.
• Accessible form fields: Interactive forms need labels, instructions, and error messages that work seamlessly with assistive technologies.
• OCR for scanned documents: Any scanned image of text must be converted into searchable, selectable text to ensure users with visual disabilities can read it.

5. Manual Keyboard Navigation Testing

Keyboard accessibility is a core requirement of Section 508 compliance. Many users rely solely on keyboards or assistive alternatives for navigation.

Key focus areas (expanded):

• Logical tab order: The tab sequence should follow the natural reading order from left to right and top to bottom so users can predict where focus will move next.
• Visible focus indicators: As users tab through controls, the active element must always remain visually identifiable with clear outlines or highlights.
• No keyboard traps: Users must never become stuck on any interactive component. They should always be able to move forward, backward, or exit a component easily.
• Keyboard support for interactive elements: Components like dropdowns, sliders, modals, and pop-ups must support keyboard interactions, such as arrow keys, Escape, and Enter.
• Complete form support: Every field, checkbox, and button must be accessible without a mouse, ensuring smooth form completion for users of all abilities.

6. Screen Reader Testing

Screen readers translate digital content into speech or Braille for users who are blind or have low vision.

Tools commonly used:

• NVDA (Windows, free) – A popular, community-supported screen reader ideal for testing web content.
• JAWS (Windows, commercial) – Widely used in professional and government settings; essential for ensuring compatibility.
• VoiceOver (Mac/iOS) – Built into Apple devices and used by millions of mobile users.
• TalkBack (Android) – Android’s native screen reader for mobile accessibility.
• ChromeVox (Chromebook) – A useful option for ChromeOS-based environments.

What to test:

• Proper reading order: Ensures content reads logically and predictably.
• Correct labeling of links and controls: Allows users to understand exactly what each element does.
• Logical heading structure: Helps users jump between sections efficiently.
• Accessible alternative text: Provides meaningful descriptions of images, icons, and visual components.
• Accurate ARIA roles: Ensures that interactive elements announce correctly and do not create confusion.
• Clear error messages: Users must receive understandable explanations and guidance when mistakes occur in forms.

7. Multimedia Accessibility Testing

Multimedia content must support multiple types of disabilities, especially hearing and visual impairments.

Requirements include:

• Closed captions: Provide text for spoken content so users who are deaf or hard of hearing can understand the material.
• Audio descriptions: Narrate key visual events for videos where visual context is essential.
• Transcripts: Offer a text-based alternative for audio or video content.
• Accessible controls: Players must support keyboard navigation, screen reader labels, and clear visual focus indicators.
• Synchronized captioning for webinars: Live content must include accurate, real-time captioning to ensure equity.

8. Mobile & Responsive Accessibility Testing

Mobile accessibility extends Section 508 requirements to apps and responsive websites.

Areas to test:

• Touch target size: Buttons and controls must be large enough to activate without precision.
• Orientation flexibility: Users should be able to navigate in both portrait and landscape modes.
• Zoom support: Content should reflow when zoomed without causing horizontal scrolling.
• Compatibility with screen readers and switch access: Ensures full usability for mobile AT users.
• Logical focus order: Mobile interfaces must maintain predictable navigation patterns as layouts change.

Best Practices for Sustainable Section 508 Compliance (Expanded)

• Train all development, procurement, and management teams: Ongoing accessibility education ensures everyone understands requirements and can implement them consistently across projects.
• Involve users with disabilities in testing: Direct feedback from real users reveals barriers that automated and manual tests might miss.
• Use both automated and manual testing: A hybrid approach provides accuracy, speed, and depth across diverse content types.
• Stay updated with evolving standards: Accessibility guidelines and tools evolve each year, so teams must remain current to maintain compliance.
• Maintain an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) using VPAT: This formal documentation demonstrates compliance, supports procurement, and helps agencies evaluate digital products.
• Establish internal accessibility policies: Clear guidelines ensure consistent implementation and define roles, responsibilities, and expectations.
• Assign accessibility owners and remediation timelines: Accountability accelerates fixes and maintains long-term accessibility maturity.

Conclusion

Section 508 compliance testing is essential for organizations developing or providing technology for federal use. By expanding testing beyond simple automated scans and incorporating manual evaluation, assistive technology testing, accessible document creation, mobile support, and strong organizational processes, you can create inclusive digital experiences that meet legal standards and serve all users effectively. With a structured approach, continuous improvement, and the right tools, your organization can remain compliant while delivering high-quality, future-ready digital solutions across every platform.

Ensure your digital products meet Section 508 standards and deliver accessible experiences for every user. Get expert support from our accessibility specialists today.

Explore Accessibility Services

Frequently Asked Questions

Common Accessibility Issues: Real Bugs from Real Testing

by Rajesh K | Jun 26, 2025 | Accessibility Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 7 comments

Ensuring accessibility is not just a compliance requirement but a responsibility. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over 1 in 6 people globally live with some form of disability. These users often rely on assistive technologies like screen readers, keyboard navigation, and transcripts to access digital content. Unfortunately, many websites and applications fall short due to basic accessibility oversights. Accessibility testing plays a crucial role in identifying and addressing these issues early. Addressing common accessibility issues not only helps you meet standards like WCAG, ADA, and Section 508, but also improves overall user experience and SEO. A more inclusive web means broader reach, higher engagement, and ultimately, greater impact. Through this article, we explore common accessibility issues found in real-world projects. These are not theoretical examples; they’re based on actual bugs discovered during rigorous testing. Let’s dive into the practical breakdown of accessibility concerns grouped by content type.

1. Heading Structure Issues

Proper heading structures help users using screen readers understand the content hierarchy and navigate pages efficiently.

Bug 1: Heading Not Marked as a Heading

• Actual: The heading “Project Scope Statement” is rendered as plain text without any heading tag.
• Expected: Apply appropriate semantic HTML like <h1>, <h2>, etc., to define heading levels.
• Impact: Users relying on screen readers may miss the section altogether or fail to grasp its significance.
• Tip: Always structure headings in a logical hierarchy, starting with <h1>.

Bug 2: Incorrect Heading Level Used

• Actual: “Scientific Theories” is read as <h4>, although it should be a sub-section of an <h4> heading.
• Expected: Adjust the tag to <h5> or correct parent heading level.
• Impact: Breaks logical flow for assistive technologies, causing confusion.
• Tip: Use accessibility tools like the WAVE tool to audit heading levels.

Bug 3: Missing <h1> Tag

• Actual: The page lacks an <h1> tag, which defines the main topic.
• Expected: Include an <h1> tag at the top of every page.
• Impact: Reduces both accessibility and SEO.
• Tip: <h1> should be unique per page and describe the page content.

2. Image Accessibility Issues

Images need to be accessible for users who cannot see them, especially when images convey important information.

Bug 4: Missing Alt Text for Informative Image

• Actual: Alt attribute is missing for an image containing instructional content.
• Expected: Provide a short, meaningful alt text.
• Impact: Screen reader users miss essential information.
• Tip: Avoid using “image of” or “picture of” in alt text; go straight to the point.

Bug 5: Missing Long Description for Complex Image

• Actual: A complex diagram has no detailed description.
• Expected: Include a longdesc or use ARIA attributes for complex visuals.
• Impact: Users miss relationships, patterns, or data described.
• Tip: Consider linking to a textual version nearby

3. List Markup Issues

List semantics are crucial for conveying grouped or ordered content meaningfully.

Bug 7: Missing List Tags

• Actual: A series of points is rendered as plain text.
• Expected: Use <ul> or <ol> with <li> for each item.
• Impact: Screen readers treat it as one long paragraph.
• Tip: Use semantic HTML, not CSS-based visual formatting alone.

Bug 8: Incorrect List Type

• Actual: An ordered list is coded as <ul>.
• Expected: Replace <ul> with <ol> where sequence matters.
• Impact: Users can’t tell that order is significant.
• Tip: Use <ol> for steps, sequences, or rankings.

Bug 9: Single-Item List

• Actual: A list with only one <li>.
• Expected: Remove the list tag or combine with other content.
• Impact: Adds unnecessary navigation complexity.
• Tip: Avoid lists unless grouping multiple elements.

Bug 10: Fragmented List Structure

• Actual: Related list items split across separate lists.
• Expected: Combine all relevant items into a single list.
• Impact: Misrepresents logical groupings.
• Tip: Use list nesting if needed to maintain hierarchy.

4. Table Accessibility Issues

Tables must be well-structured to be meaningful when read aloud by screen readers.

Bug 11: Missing Table Headers

• Actual: Data cells lack <th> elements.
• Expected: Use <th> for headers, with appropriate scope attributes.
• Impact: Users can’t understand what the data represents.
• Tip: Define row and column headers clearly.

Bug 12: Misleading Table Structure

• Actual: Table structure inaccurately reflects 2 rows instead of 16.
• Expected: Ensure correct markup for rows and columns.
• Impact: Critical data may be skipped.
• Tip: Validate with screen readers or accessibility checkers.

Bug 13: Inadequate Table Summary

• Actual: Blank cells aren’t explained.
• Expected: Describe cell usage and purpose.
• Impact: Leaves users guessing.
• Tip: Use ARIA attributes or visible descriptions.

Bug 14: List Data Formatted as Table

• Actual: Single-category list shown in table format.
• Expected: Reformat into semantic list.
• Impact: Adds unnecessary table complexity.
• Tip: Choose the simplest semantic structure.

Bug 15: Layout Table Misuse

• Actual: Used tables for page layout.
• Expected: Use <div>, <p>, or CSS for layout.
• Impact: Screen readers misinterpret structure.
• Tip: Reserve <table> strictly for data.

Bug 16: Missing Table Summary

• Actual: No summary for complex data.
• Expected: Add a concise summary using summary or aria-describedby.
• Impact: Users cannot grasp table context.
• Tip: Keep summaries short and descriptive.

Bug 17: Table Caption Missing

• Actual: Title outside of <table> tags.
• Expected: Use <caption> within <table>.
• Impact: Screen readers do not associate title with table.
• Tip: Use <figure> and <figcaption> for more descriptive context.

5. Link Issues

Properly labeled and functional links are vital for intuitive navigation.

Bug 18: Inactive URL

• Actual: URL presented as plain text.
• Expected: Use anchor tag <a href="">.
• Impact: Users can’t access the link.
• Tip: Always validate links manually during testing.

Bug 19: Broken or Misleading Links

• Actual: Links go to 404 or wrong destination.
• Expected: Link to accurate, live pages.
• Impact: Users lose trust and face navigation issues.
• Tip: Set up automated link checkers.

6. Video Accessibility Issues

Accessible videos ensure inclusion for users with hearing or visual impairments.

Bug 20: Missing Transcript

• Actual: No transcript provided for the video.
• Expected: Include transcript button or inline text.
• Impact: Hearing-impaired users miss information.
• Tip: Provide transcripts alongside or beneath video.

Bug 21: No Audio Description

• Actual: Important visuals not described.
• Expected: Include described audio track or written version.
• Impact: Visually impaired users lose context.
• Tip: Use tools like YouDescribe for enhanced narration.

7. Color Contrast Issues (CCA)

Contrast ensures readability for users with low vision or color blindness.

Bug 22: Poor Contrast for Text

• Actual: Ratio is 1.9:1 instead of the required 4.5:1.
• Expected: Maintain minimum contrast for normal text.
• Impact: Text becomes unreadable.
• Tip: Use tools like Contrast Checker to verify.

Bug 23: Low Contrast in Charts

• Actual: Graph fails the 3:1 non-text contrast rule.
• Expected: Ensure clarity in visuals using patterns or textures.
• Impact: Data becomes inaccessible.
• Tip: Avoid using color alone to differentiate data points.

Bug 24: Color Alone Used to Convey Info

• Actual: No labels, only color cues.
• Expected: Add text labels or icons.
• Impact: Colorblind users are excluded.
• Tip: Pair color with shape or label.

8. Scroll Bar Issues

Horizontal scroll bars can break the user experience, especially on mobile.

Bug 25: Horizontal Scroll at 100% Zoom

• Actual: Page scrolls sideways unnecessarily.
• Expected: Content should be fully viewable without horizontal scroll.
• Impact: Frustrating on small screens or for users with mobility impairments.
• Tip: Use responsive design techniques and test at various zoom levels.

Conclusion

Accessibility is not a one-time fix but a continuous journey. By proactively identifying and resolving these common accessibility issues, you can enhance the usability and inclusiveness of your digital products. Remember, designing for accessibility not only benefits users with disabilities but also improves the experience for everyone. Incorporating accessibility into your development and testing workflow ensures legal compliance, better SEO, and greater user satisfaction. Start today by auditing your website or application and addressing the bugs outlined above.

Frequently Asked Questions