Website Accessibility Audit: What to Expect and How to Prepare

A website accessibility audit systematically evaluates how well a website serves users with disabilities. Organizations commission audits to understand their compliance status, identify barriers to access, and develop remediation roadmaps. Whether driven by legal requirements, business objectives, or ethical commitments, understanding the audit process helps organizations prepare effectively and extract maximum value from the assessment.

This guide explains what happens during an accessibility audit, how to prepare your organization, and what deliverables to expect when the evaluation concludes.

What Is a Website Accessibility Audit?

An accessibility audit is a comprehensive evaluation of a website against established accessibility standards—typically WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) 2.1 or 2.2 at Level AA conformance. The audit examines how the site functions for users who navigate via keyboard, rely on screen readers, have low vision, experience cognitive disabilities, or face other access challenges.

Audit Components

A thorough accessibility audit includes multiple evaluation methods:

Automated Testing Scanning tools examine the codebase for programmatically detectable issues—missing alt text, insufficient color contrast, improper heading structure, missing form labels. Automated tools catch approximately 30-40% of WCAG failures quickly and consistently.

Manual Testing Human evaluators perform systematic testing using assistive technologies and accessibility-specific techniques. Manual testing catches issues automated tools cannot detect, including logical reading order, meaningful link text, and proper focus management.

Assistive Technology Testing Evaluators use actual screen readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver), screen magnifiers, and voice recognition software to assess real-world user experience. This testing reveals practical usability issues beyond technical compliance.

User Journey Analysis Critical user paths—account creation, checkout, form submission—receive focused evaluation to ensure users can complete essential tasks regardless of ability.

Types of Accessibility Audits

Organizations can choose from several audit types based on their needs, budget, and timeline.

Automated Scan Only

What It Is: Tool-based scanning that generates a report of programmatically detectable issues.

Pros: Fast, inexpensive, consistent, easily repeatable.

Cons: Misses 60-70% of accessibility issues. Cannot evaluate context, user experience, or issues requiring human judgment.

Best For: Initial baseline assessment, ongoing monitoring between comprehensive audits, developer self-checks.

Typical Cost: $0-500 depending on tool and site size.

WCAG Conformance Audit

What It Is: Systematic evaluation against all applicable WCAG success criteria at a specified conformance level (A, AA, or AAA).

Pros: Comprehensive technical assessment, detailed success criteria mapping, clear pass/fail determinations.

Cons: Does not assess overall user experience, may miss issues not explicitly covered by WCAG, requires accessibility expertise to interpret.

Best For: Compliance verification, legal documentation, procurement requirements, baseline establishment.

Typical Cost: $5,000-25,000 depending on site complexity and scope.

User Experience Accessibility Audit

What It Is: Evaluation focused on how real users with disabilities experience the site, often including usability testing with disabled participants.

Pros: Reveals practical usability issues, provides real user perspectives, identifies problems beyond technical compliance.

Cons: More expensive, requires participant recruitment, findings may be less systematic.

Best For: Organizations prioritizing user experience, sites that technically comply but may still present usability challenges.

Typical Cost: $15,000-50,000 depending on participant count and testing depth.

Hybrid Audit

What It Is: Combines WCAG conformance testing with assistive technology evaluation and prioritized user journey analysis.

Pros: Balances thoroughness with practical applicability, provides both compliance documentation and usability insights.

Cons: More expensive than conformance-only audits, requires evaluators with both technical and UX expertise.

Best For: Most organizations seeking actionable results—covers compliance requirements while highlighting real user impact.

Typical Cost: $8,000-35,000 depending on scope.

What Auditors Examine

Accessibility auditors evaluate your site across multiple dimensions. Understanding these areas helps organizations prepare relevant assets and documentation.

Page Templates and Components

Auditors identify distinct page templates—homepage, category pages, product pages, checkout flow, account pages, content pages—and test representative samples. They examine:

• Header and navigation patterns
• Footer structures
• Form implementations
• Interactive components (modals, accordions, tabs, carousels)
• Data tables
• Media players

Content Types

Different content types present different accessibility challenges:

• Images: Alt text presence and quality, decorative image handling, complex image descriptions
• Video/Audio: Captions, transcripts, audio descriptions
• Documents: PDF accessibility, downloadable file accessibility
• Dynamic Content: JavaScript-rendered content accessibility, live region implementation

User Flows

Critical user journeys receive comprehensive end-to-end evaluation:

• Site navigation and search
• Product browsing and filtering
• Cart management
• Checkout process (guest and registered)
• Account creation and management
• Contact and support forms
• Content consumption

Technical Implementation

Auditors examine underlying code quality:

• Semantic HTML usage
• ARIA implementation correctness
• Heading hierarchy
• Landmark regions
• Focus management
• Keyboard interaction patterns

The Audit Process: Step by Step

Understanding the typical audit workflow helps organizations plan timelines and resource allocation.

Phase 1: Scoping and Planning (1-2 Weeks)

Discovery Meeting The audit begins with a kickoff meeting to understand business context, target audience, technology stack, and specific concerns. This conversation shapes audit scope and priorities.

Scope Definition The auditor defines which pages, templates, and user flows fall within scope. For large sites, auditors select representative page samples rather than testing every page.

Typical scoping decisions include:

• Which WCAG version and conformance level (usually 2.1 or 2.2 AA)
• Page count and template coverage
• User flows to evaluate
• Assistive technologies to use
• Third-party content inclusion/exclusion

Asset Collection The organization provides access credentials, sitemaps, page inventories, user flow documentation, and any known issue lists.

Phase 2: Automated Testing (Days)

Auditors run automated scanning tools across the in-scope pages. This phase:

• Establishes baseline issue counts
• Identifies systematic patterns (same error repeated across templates)
• Flags areas requiring manual investigation
• Documents programmatically detectable failures

Automated testing typically runs against staging or production environments with full content.

Phase 3: Manual Evaluation (1-4 Weeks)

The most time-intensive phase involves human evaluators systematically testing against WCAG criteria.

Keyboard Testing Evaluators navigate the entire site using only keyboard:

• Can all interactive elements receive focus?
• Is focus order logical?
• Are focus indicators visible?
• Can users escape from all components?
• Do keyboard shortcuts conflict with assistive technology commands?

Screen Reader Testing Evaluators use screen readers (typically NVDA and/or JAWS on Windows, VoiceOver on Mac/iOS) to experience content as blind users would:

• Is content announced in logical order?
• Are interactive elements properly labeled?
• Do state changes (expanded, selected, checked) announce correctly?
• Can forms be completed without visual reference?

Visual Inspection Evaluators examine visual presentation:

• Color contrast ratios
• Text resizing behavior
• Zoom compatibility
• Animation and motion handling
• Focus indicator visibility

Cognitive Accessibility Review Evaluators assess factors affecting users with cognitive disabilities:

• Consistent navigation
• Clear error messages
• Plain language usage
• Timeout handling
• Interruption management

Phase 4: Documentation (1-2 Weeks)

Auditors compile findings into a deliverable document (or documents) containing:

• Executive summary with key findings
• Methodology description
• Detailed issue catalog
• Evidence (screenshots, code samples)
• WCAG success criteria mapping
• Remediation recommendations
• Priority rankings

Phase 5: Results Review (Meeting)

The auditor presents findings to stakeholders, explains key issues, answers questions, and discusses remediation approaches. This meeting ensures the organization understands findings well enough to act on them.

How to Prepare for an Accessibility Audit

Organizations that prepare effectively get more value from their audit investment.

Inventory Your Site

Before engaging an auditor, document:

Page Templates List every distinct template type: homepage, category listing, product detail, blog post, landing page, checkout steps, account pages, error pages.

Interactive Components Catalog components that involve user interaction: navigation menus, search, filters, accordions, tabs, modals, carousels, forms.

Third-Party Content Identify embedded content you don't control: payment processors, chat widgets, social media embeds, advertising, analytics scripts.

User Flows Map critical paths users take through your site, especially conversion funnels and account management tasks.

Gather Documentation

Prepare materials the auditor will need:

• Sitemap (XML or visual)
• Test account credentials (multiple user roles if applicable)
• Design system or component library documentation
• Brand guidelines (if color changes have constraints)
• Previous audit reports (if any)
• Known issue lists
• Technology stack overview

Choose Appropriate Scope

Consider what conformance level you need:

WCAG 2.1 AA remains the most common standard for legal compliance and covers most user needs. This includes 50 success criteria.

WCAG 2.2 AA adds 9 new success criteria addressing authentication, consistent help, redundant entry, dragging movements, and target size. Required for new regulations like EAA (European Accessibility Act).

Level A Only covers basic accessibility but misses important requirements. Rarely sufficient for legal compliance or good user experience.

Level AAA includes enhanced requirements. Full AAA conformance is rarely achievable for entire sites, but specific AAA criteria may apply to certain use cases.

Set Expectations Internally

Prepare stakeholders for audit outcomes:

Most sites fail initial audits. WebAIM's annual analysis consistently finds 96%+ of homepages contain detectable WCAG failures. Finding issues is the audit's purpose—not a failure of the audit or your team.

Issue counts will seem high. Sites commonly have hundreds or thousands of issues. Many are the same issue repeated across pages (missing alt text on every product image, for example). The remediation effort is typically far less than raw numbers suggest.

Prioritization matters more than perfection. Not all issues affect users equally. Effective remediation focuses on high-impact issues first.

Freeze the Environment

If possible, avoid major site changes during the audit period. Changes made after testing begins may not be evaluated, creating gaps in the assessment.

Understanding Audit Deliverables

Audit reports vary in format and detail. Quality reports include specific elements.

Executive Summary

A high-level overview for non-technical stakeholders covering:

• Overall conformance status
• Key findings summary
• Risk assessment
• Recommended next steps
• Resource/timeline estimates

Issue Catalog

The detailed listing of identified accessibility barriers:

Each issue should include:

• Description of the problem
• Location (page URL, component)
• WCAG success criterion violated
• Impact on users (which disabilities affected, severity)
• Evidence (screenshot, code sample)
• Remediation recommendation
• Priority level

Issue categorization typically follows:

• Critical: Blocks access entirely for some users
• High: Significantly impairs experience
• Medium: Creates difficulty but workarounds exist
• Low: Minor impact or edge cases

WCAG Conformance Matrix

A mapping showing each tested success criterion and its pass/fail/not applicable status. This documentation proves which criteria have been evaluated.

Remediation Guidance

Recommendations for fixing identified issues, ideally including:

• Technical approach
• Code examples where applicable
• Design pattern references
• Related issues (fixing one may fix others)

Testing Methodology

Documentation of how testing was performed:

• Tools used
• Assistive technologies tested
• Browser/device combinations
• Page selection rationale
• Evaluator qualifications

After the Audit: What Comes Next

An audit identifies problems; remediation fixes them. Planning the path forward is essential.

Prioritize Remediation

Not all issues require immediate attention. Effective prioritization considers:

User Impact Issues blocking critical user flows (checkout, account access, navigation) deserve priority over minor annoyances.

Affected Population Problems affecting larger user groups or complete access blockers warrant faster attention.

Remediation Effort Some fixes are quick (adding alt text), others require significant development (rebuilding navigation). Quick wins build momentum.

Legal Risk Issues most commonly cited in accessibility lawsuits—navigation, forms, images, checkout—merit priority attention.

A common prioritization framework addresses:

1. Critical navigation and checkout barriers (immediate)
2. Form and input accessibility (short-term)
3. Content accessibility (ongoing)
4. Enhanced user experience (long-term)

Plan Development Work

Translate audit findings into development tasks:

• Group related issues (all modal fixes together, all form fixes together)
• Estimate effort for each group
• Assign to development sprints
• Establish testing criteria for verification

Implement Monitoring

Audits capture a point-in-time snapshot. Without ongoing monitoring, accessibility regresses as new content and features launch.

Continuous monitoring should:

• Scan for regressions automatically
• Alert teams to new issues
• Track remediation progress
• Provide dashboards for stakeholder visibility

For implementation guidance, see our Automated Accessibility Compliance guide.

Plan Re-Evaluation

Schedule follow-up assessment to verify remediation effectiveness. Options include:

Full Re-Audit Complete evaluation using original methodology. Provides comprehensive verification but requires full budget and timeline.

Spot-Check Audit Targeted re-evaluation of previously failing criteria. More cost-effective for verifying specific fixes.

Automated Verification Tool-based confirmation that programmatically detectable issues have been resolved. Cannot verify manual testing items.

Common Audit Pitfalls to Avoid

Organizations frequently make mistakes that reduce audit value.

Auditing Too Early

Testing a site under active development wastes audit budget. Issues found may be resolved by ongoing work, or new issues may be introduced before launch. Time audits to evaluate stable codebases.

Auditing Too Narrow a Scope

Testing only the homepage misses issues in product pages, checkout, and account areas. Representative sampling across all template types reveals systematic issues.

Ignoring Third-Party Content

Embedded widgets, payment processors, and plugins fall under your accessibility obligation. Ensure audits examine third-party content or explicitly document exclusions.

Not Planning for Remediation

An audit without a remediation plan produces a report that sits unused. Before commissioning an audit, secure commitment for fixing what's found.

Expecting Perfection

No site achieves 100% WCAG conformance on first audit. The goal is understanding your accessibility posture and systematically improving it.

One-and-Done Thinking

Accessibility requires ongoing attention. Single audits become outdated as sites change. Build accessibility into development processes rather than treating audits as one-time events.

When to Commission an Audit

Strategic timing maximizes audit value.

Before Major Launch Audit new sites or major redesigns before public release. Fixing issues pre-launch costs less than post-launch remediation.

After Receiving Legal Notice Demand letters or lawsuits require immediate understanding of accessibility status. Audits document issues and demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts.

During Procurement B2B buyers increasingly require accessibility documentation. Audits provide evidence for procurement questionnaires.

Annually Regular audits catch regressions and new issues. Annual evaluation maintains accessibility over time.

After Major Updates Significant feature additions, redesigns, or platform changes warrant re-evaluation.

Choosing an Audit Provider

Audit quality varies significantly across providers. Evaluate potential auditors on:

Methodology Transparency

Quality providers explain exactly how they test, which tools they use, and how many human hours they dedicate to manual evaluation. Vague methodology descriptions suggest automated-only testing.

Evaluator Credentials

Look for certifications (IAAP CPWA, Trusted Tester) and demonstrated accessibility expertise. Ask about evaluator experience with assistive technologies.

Assistive Technology Coverage

Comprehensive audits test with multiple screen readers across platforms. Single-technology testing misses platform-specific issues.

Deliverable Quality

Request sample reports. Quality reports include specific, actionable findings with clear evidence and remediation guidance—not generic recommendations.

Remediation Support

Some providers offer consulting to help implement fixes. This support can be valuable for organizations lacking internal accessibility expertise.

Avoid Red Flags

• Promises of "WCAG certification" (no such thing exists)
• Very low prices (suggests automated-only testing)
• No manual testing component
• No assistive technology testing
• Reports without specific code-level findings

Building Internal Capability

Organizations committed to long-term accessibility should develop internal audit capability.

Train Development Teams

Developers who understand accessibility write accessible code. Training investments reduce future audit findings.

Implement Automated Testing

Integrate accessibility scanning into CI/CD pipelines. Catch issues during development rather than in production audits.

TestParty's Bouncer integrates accessibility checks into GitHub workflows, providing immediate feedback on code changes. Learn more about GitHub accessibility integration.

Establish Review Processes

Add accessibility checkpoints to design review and QA processes. Prevent issues from reaching production.

Create Component Libraries

Accessible, tested component libraries ensure consistency across features. Building accessibility into reusable components scales accessibility improvements efficiently.

Taking Action

Website accessibility audits provide essential insight into how well your site serves users with disabilities. Understanding the audit process—what's examined, how testing works, what deliverables to expect—helps organizations prepare effectively and extract maximum value.

Remember: an audit is the beginning of accessibility work, not the end. The findings guide remediation efforts that make your site genuinely accessible.

Schedule a TestParty demo and get a 14-day compliance implementation plan.

Related Resources

• Common WCAG Failures in Shopify Themes
• WCAG 2.2 vs 2.1: Complete Comparison
• Automated vs One-Time Audits
• Accessibility Remediation Cost Analysis