What this guide is for
Accessibility audits vary wildly. Some give you a practical fix list. Others give you noise, screenshots, and a score Source 2 .
This guide sets expectations. It helps you buy the right thing. It also helps you compare suppliers fairly Source 2 .
What a proper accessibility audit includes
1) Scope and journeys
A good audit starts by agreeing what will be tested. It focuses on key journeys, not a random list of pages Source 2 .
- A clear target standard, usually WCAG 2.2 AA Source 1 .
- A list of key journeys, chosen with you. For example, donate, enquire, apply, book, buy Source 2 .
- A set of representative templates, not every URL on the site Source 2 .
- Known constraints called out early, such as embedded third-party tools you cannot control Source 2 .
2) Manual testing
Automated scanning finds some issues. Manual testing finds the issues that block real people Source 2 .
- Keyboard-only testing across key journeys, including navigation, menus, modals, and forms Source 1 .
- Focus checks, order, visibility, trapping, and returning focus after overlays Source 1 .
- Form checks, labels, instructions, required fields, validation, and error messaging Source 3 .
- Structure checks, headings, landmarks, lists, tables, and link text Source 1 .
- Zoom and reflow checks at 200%, plus small-screen checks Source 1 .
- Motion checks for carousels, animation, video, and reduced motion preferences where relevant Source 1 .
3) Assistive technology checks
You do not need testing across every screen reader on earth. You do need coverage that reflects common user setups Source 2 .
- Screen reader spot checks on key templates and key interactions Source 2 .
- Checks on dynamic components such as menus, accordions, tabs, modals, and notifications Source 2 .
- Notes that describe what happens, not vague statements like “works fine” Source 2 .
4) Clear findings and priorities
The output should help you fix issues quickly. It should also help non-technical stakeholders understand risk Source 2 .
- A prioritised issue list, sorted by user impact and journey impact Source 2 .
- For each issue, severity, affected templates, steps to reproduce, and expected behaviour Source 2 .
- Suggested fixes, with examples where helpful Source 2 .
- Clear mapping back to WCAG criteria where relevant, without turning the report into a legal document Source 1 .
5) Retesting and closure
Fixes need verification. Without retesting, an audit becomes a to-do list you never trust Source 2 .
- A retest pass after fixes land Source 2 .
- Closure notes per issue, including evidence of the fix working in the journey Source 2 .
- A short regression checklist for future releases Source 2 .
What an accessibility audit never includes
If an audit leans on these, it is not a useful audit. It is a sales document Source 2 .
- A single automated scan presented as an audit Source 2 .
- A score with no issue detail, no reproduction steps, and no fix guidance Source 2 .
- A recommendation to add an accessibility overlay instead of fixing the site Source 7 .
- A list of WCAG criteria with no explanation of how your pages fail, or where users get blocked Source 1 .
- A promise of full compliance without scope, caveats, and retest evidence Source 2 .
What to ask for before you buy
- A sample report from a recent project, redacted if needed Source 2 .
- A clear statement of what pages and journeys are in scope Source 2 .
- The level of manual testing included Source 2 .
- Whether fixing support is available, and how it is priced Source 2 .
- Whether retesting is included, and what “done” means Source 2 .
A quick way to compare two audits
If you have two suppliers, compare on output quality, not on how confident they sound Source 2 .
- Does the report tell you what to fix and how Source 2 .
- Does it prioritise issues by user impact Source 2 .
- Does it cover key journeys, not only random pages Source 2 .
- Does it include retesting Source 2 .
Next step
If you want confidence fast, start with your top journeys and your main templates. A good audit gives you a prioritised fix plan you can ship, then retest Source 2 .
Sources
- [1] W3C. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. Back to article
- [2] W3C WAI. Evaluating Web Accessibility Overview. Back to article
- [3] W3C WAI. Forms tutorial. Back to article
- [4] W3C. WCAG 2.2, Guideline 3.3 Input Assistance. Back to article
- [5] GOV.UK Design System. Error message component. Back to article
- [6] The A11Y Project. Should I use an accessibility overlay?. Back to article
- [7] European Disability Forum and IAAP. Joint statement on accessibility overlays. Back to article