Accessibility Audit Reports: Complete Guide for 2025

What Is an Accessibility Audit Report?

An accessibility audit report is a comprehensive assessment document that evaluates whether a website, application, or digital product meets established accessibility standards and guidelines. These reports serve dual purposes: they document compliance with regulations like WCAG 2.2 and the ADA, while also providing actionable roadmaps for remediation that development teams can follow.

Think of an accessibility audit report as both a diagnostic tool and a treatment plan. It identifies where your digital properties fall short of accessibility standards, explains why these issues matter for users with disabilities, and prescribes specific fixes to achieve compliance.

Purpose: These reports document conformance to standards like WCAG, ADA, and Section 508, while identifying specific barriers that prevent users with disabilities from accessing your content or functionality. They create a paper trail demonstrating your organization's commitment to accessibility and due diligence in addressing potential legal risks.

Audience: Accessibility audit reports serve multiple stakeholders. Legal teams use them to assess compliance risk. Development teams reference them for technical remediation guidance. Executive leadership relies on them for strategic planning and resource allocation. Accessibility professionals use them to track progress over time.

Outcome: A well-executed audit report provides concrete evidence of due diligence efforts and delivers prioritized action items that teams can tackle systematically. It transforms the abstract concept of "accessibility" into specific, measurable tasks with clear success criteria.

"Organizations often commission accessibility audits at critical junctures—before a major product launch, after receiving a demand letter, or as part of annual compliance reviews. The audit report becomes their north star for remediation efforts and their shield against potential litigation," explains Sarah Chen, Senior Accessibility Consultant at a leading compliance firm.

Essential Components of an Accessibility Audit Report

A well-structured accessibility audit report follows a consistent format that ensures clarity, comparability, and actionability. This standardization allows organizations to track progress across multiple audits, compare different products or pages, and ensure nothing falls through the cracks during remediation. Comprehensive documentation serves both immediate remediation needs and long-term compliance tracking.

Executive Summary and Conformance Status

The executive summary provides a high-level overview that clearly states whether your digital product meets, does not meet, or partially meets accessibility standards. This section must be understandable to non-technical stakeholders who need to grasp the compliance situation quickly without diving into technical details.

Your executive summary should include:

Overall conformance level: Specify exactly which standard and level you've been evaluated against (e.g., "Does not meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA" or "Partially conforms to Section 508 standards"). This statement becomes your baseline for improvement.

Key strengths in accessibility implementation: Highlight what you're doing well. This might include properly structured headings, comprehensive keyboard navigation, or consistent alt text usage. Recognizing strengths helps maintain good practices during remediation.

Critical issues requiring immediate attention: Identify showstopper problems that completely block access for certain users. These might include missing form labels that prevent screen reader users from completing purchases, or color contrast issues that make text unreadable for users with low vision.

High-level recommendation priorities: Provide a roadmap overview that helps stakeholders understand the scope of work ahead. Group recommendations into immediate fixes (1-2 weeks), short-term improvements (1-3 months), and long-term enhancements (3-6 months).

"Executives typically spend less than five minutes reviewing an audit report. The executive summary needs to convey the business risk, required investment, and timeline for compliance in language they understand—not WCAG jargon," notes Marcus Thompson, Chief Digital Officer at a Fortune 500 retailer.

Scope and Methodology

The scope section defines exactly what was reviewed and, equally important, what wasn't. This clarity prevents disputes about coverage and sets appropriate expectations for remediation efforts. The methodology describes your evaluation approach, ensuring the audit can be replicated or verified by another party if needed.

Your scope documentation should include:

Website or application name and base URL: Specify the exact digital property evaluated, including any staging or production environment details. Include version numbers for applications or content management systems.

Specific pages, features, or user flows tested: List every URL, interactive feature, and user journey evaluated. Common selections include homepage, product pages, checkout flow, account creation, and contact forms. Explain your sampling methodology if you evaluated representative pages rather than the entire site.

Evaluation tools and versions used: Document both automated tools (axe DevTools 4.7, WAVE 3.2) and manual testing approaches (keyboard navigation, screen reader testing with JAWS 2024 and NVDA 2023.3). Include browser versions and operating systems.

Date range of the assessment: Specify exact dates when testing occurred. Digital properties change frequently, and this timestamp ensures your findings reflect a specific point in time.

Languages and platforms evaluated: Note if you tested multiple language versions or responsive breakpoints (desktop, tablet, mobile). Accessibility issues often vary across different viewing contexts.

"Scope clarity is crucial for managing expectations and avoiding liability. When a client says 'you missed this issue,' we can point to the scope and show whether that page or feature was included in the original assessment," shares Jennifer Martinez, Lead Auditor at an accessibility consulting firm.

Detailed Findings and WCAG Compliance

The findings section forms the heart of your audit report. Each non-conformant item should be clearly linked to the specific WCAG success criterion it violates, with sufficient evidence for developers to locate and fix the issue. Organization and clarity here directly impact remediation efficiency.

Structure your findings to include:

Conformance Level Tested: Clearly state which WCAG level you evaluated against (typically Level AA for legal compliance). Note any Level AAA criteria you included for enhanced accessibility.

Issue Categorization: Organize findings by WCAG's four principles—Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. Within each principle, group by success criteria. This structure helps teams understand the nature of problems and assign them to appropriate team members.

Evidence and Context: Include screenshots highlighting the problem area, relevant code snippets showing the current implementation, and descriptions of how users encounter the issue. For example, show the color contrast ratio for text that fails contrast requirements, or demonstrate how a screen reader announces an unlabeled button.

Impact Assessment: Explain specifically how each issue affects users with different disabilities. A missing alt attribute impacts blind users using screen readers. Insufficient color contrast affects users with low vision or color blindness. Small touch targets frustrate users with motor disabilities.

"Detailed findings with clear evidence eliminate the guesswork for developers. When we show exactly where the problem occurs, what the current code looks like, and what it should look like instead, fixes happen three times faster," reveals David Kim, Senior Frontend Developer at a major e-commerce platform.

Prioritized Recommendations and Remediation Steps

Recommendations transform audit findings into an actionable workplan. Each recommendation should be specific enough that a developer without accessibility expertise can implement the fix correctly. Prioritization helps teams tackle the most impactful issues first when resources are limited.

Structure each recommendation to include:

Specific remediation steps: Provide exact technical instructions. Instead of "improve color contrast," write "change body text color from #767676 to #595959 to achieve 4.5:1 contrast ratio against white background."

Estimated effort or complexity level: Rate each fix as Quick Win (under 2 hours), Moderate (2-8 hours), or Complex (over 8 hours or requiring architectural changes). This helps teams plan sprints and allocate resources.

Links to relevant WCAG techniques: Reference official WCAG techniques and sufficient techniques documentation. Include links to code examples and implementation patterns from trusted sources.

Suggested timeline for fixes: Propose a remediation schedule based on severity and effort. Critical issues blocking core functionality might need fixing within 30 days, while minor enhancements could be scheduled for the next major release.

Ongoing monitoring recommendations: Suggest tools and processes to prevent regression. This might include automated testing in CI/CD pipelines, regular manual reviews, or accessibility training for the team.

"Prioritization is where the rubber meets the road. We help clients identify quick wins that demonstrate progress to stakeholders while planning for more complex remediations that require deeper technical work," explains Rachel Anderson, Director of Accessibility Services at a digital agency.

Accessibility Standards and Compliance Levels

Understanding the major frameworks referenced in accessibility audit reports is essential for interpreting findings and planning remediation. Different standards apply in different contexts, but they share common goals of making digital content accessible to all users.

WCAG 2.2 Conformance Levels (A, AA, AAA)

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) represent the internationally recognized standard for web accessibility. Published by the W3C, these guidelines provide testable success criteria organized into three conformance levels that represent progressive tiers of accessibility.

Level A addresses the most basic accessibility barriers. Meeting Level A means your content is technically accessible but may still present significant challenges for users with disabilities. Level A includes fundamental requirements like providing text alternatives for images, ensuring keyboard accessibility for all functionality, and making sure content doesn't cause seizures. While Level A conformance is better than nothing, it's generally insufficient for legal compliance or providing a genuinely inclusive experience.

Level AA represents enhanced accessibility that addresses the most common barriers faced by users with disabilities. This level has become the de facto legal standard in many jurisdictions, including U.S. federal agencies (Section 508), the European Union (EN 301 549), and numerous court settlements involving the ADA. Level AA adds requirements for sufficient color contrast (4.5:1 for normal text), consistent navigation, multiple ways to find content, and clear headings and labels. Most organizations target Level AA as their compliance goal.

Level AAA provides advanced accessibility that addresses a broader range of user needs and situations. This level includes stringent requirements like 7:1 color contrast, sign language interpretation for videos, and simplified language options. Level AAA is rarely mandated by law and isn't achievable for all content types. Organizations typically pursue select Level AAA criteria that benefit their specific user base rather than full Level AAA conformance.

"Level AA has emerged as the industry standard because it strikes a balance between accessibility and feasibility. It addresses the barriers that affect the most users while remaining achievable for most organizations with reasonable effort," notes Dr. Michael Park, Accessibility Research Director at a major university.

ADA and Section 508 Requirements

In the United States, two primary legal frameworks drive digital accessibility requirements, and audit reports often reference both to establish compliance context.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies broadly to public accommodations and commercial facilities. While the ADA doesn't explicitly mention websites, courts have increasingly ruled that websites of public accommodations must be accessible to people with disabilities. Title III of the ADA has been interpreted to cover e-commerce sites, healthcare portals, educational platforms, and any digital service connected to a physical location. Courts haven't established a specific technical standard, but WCAG 2.1 Level AA has emerged as the de facto benchmark in settlements and consent decrees.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act mandates that federal agencies make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. The revised Section 508 standards, updated in 2018, directly incorporate WCAG 2.0 Level AA success criteria. This requirement extends to any organization receiving federal funding or providing services to federal agencies. Section 508 compliance is often more stringent than ADA requirements because it includes specific procurement rules and regular reporting requirements.

Audit reports should clearly indicate which legal framework applies to your organization and how your current conformance level aligns with legal requirements. This legal context helps stakeholders understand the business risk of non-compliance.

"Failed audits can become smoking guns in litigation. Plaintiffs' attorneys use them to demonstrate that organizations knew about accessibility problems but failed to address them. That's why immediate action on audit findings is crucial for legal protection," warns Lisa Chen, Partner at a law firm specializing in digital accessibility cases.

International Standards (EN 301 549)

For organizations operating internationally, accessibility requirements extend beyond U.S. standards. The European Union uses EN 301 549 as its accessibility standard for ICT (Information and Communication Technology) products and services. Understanding these international standards ensures global compliance.

EN 301 549 applicability: This standard applies to all public sector bodies in EU member states and increasingly influences private sector requirements. The European Accessibility Act, which takes effect in 2025, extends similar requirements to private sector entities providing certain products and services, including e-commerce, banking, and transportation services.

Alignment with WCAG: EN 301 549 directly references WCAG 2.1 Level AA for web content, ensuring general compatibility with U.S. standards. However, it includes additional requirements for non-web ICT like mobile applications, software, and hardware that go beyond WCAG's scope.

Multi-standard compliance considerations: Global organizations often need to comply with multiple standards simultaneously. Fortunately, meeting WCAG 2.1 Level AA typically satisfies the web content requirements of most international standards. Audit reports for global organizations should map findings to all applicable standards and note any unique requirements that need additional attention.

How to Create an Effective Accessibility Audit Report

Creating an accessibility audit report requires systematic evaluation, careful documentation, and clear communication. The process combines automated scanning with expert manual review to capture the full spectrum of accessibility issues.

Conducting the Initial Assessment

The evaluation process leverages both automated tools and human expertise, as each approach captures different types of accessibility issues. Automated tools excel at finding technical violations, while manual testing reveals usability problems that tools cannot detect.

Define Scope: Start by identifying which pages, features, and user flows to evaluate. For large sites, select representative samples that cover all templates, functionality types, and user journeys. Include high-traffic pages, conversion-critical paths, and any areas with known accessibility concerns. Document why you selected specific pages to justify your sampling approach.

Select Tools: Choose appropriate automated testing tools for initial screening. Popular options include axe DevTools for comprehensive rule checking, WAVE for visual feedback, and Lighthouse for performance-inclusive metrics. Run multiple tools since each uses different rulesets and may catch different issues. Export and save all tool reports for reference.

Manual Testing: Have accessibility experts review elements that automated tools cannot properly evaluate. This includes assessing whether alt text meaningfully describes images (not just whether it exists), evaluating whether error messages provide useful guidance, and confirming that interactive elements have clear purposes. Test with actual assistive technologies including multiple screen readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver), voice recognition software, and alternative input devices.

User Testing: When possible, include users with disabilities in your evaluation process. They provide invaluable insights into real-world barriers that technical testing might miss. Users can identify confusing navigation patterns, unclear instructions, or workflow obstacles that technically pass WCAG but still create barriers.

Document Findings: Record each issue immediately upon discovery with sufficient detail to recreate the problem. Use consistent templates for each issue type to ensure nothing is missed. Create a running inventory that can be refined and organized for the final report.

"Automated tools catch maybe 30% of accessibility issues. The remaining 70%—including the most impactful barriers—require human evaluation. That's why professional audits combine multiple testing methods," explains Dr. Amanda Foster, Chief Accessibility Officer at a major healthcare system.

Documenting Issues with Evidence

Clear, specific documentation for each accessibility issue enables developers to understand problems and implement fixes efficiently. Vague descriptions lead to confusion, delays, and potentially incorrect remediation.

Specific Location: Identify the exact URL, component name, or interaction where the issue occurs. For single-page applications, include the route and state information needed to reproduce the issue. For dynamic content, specify the steps to trigger the problem.

Visual Evidence: Include annotated screenshots highlighting the specific problem area. For interactive issues, consider creating short video recordings that demonstrate the barrier. Use arrows, circles, or highlights to draw attention to the specific element in question.

Affected Users: Explain which users are impacted and how they experience the barrier. Rather than just stating "fails WCAG 2.4.3," explain "keyboard users cannot bypass the navigation menu, forcing them to tab through 47 links before reaching main content on every page load."

WCAG Reference: Link to the specific success criterion violated, including the criterion number, name, and level. Include relevant failure techniques from WCAG documentation. This helps developers understand the underlying principle, not just the specific fix.

Current Behavior vs. Expected Behavior: Clearly describe what currently happens and what should happen instead. For example: "Currently, the error message states 'Invalid input.' Expected behavior: error message should specify 'Email address must include an @ symbol' to help users correct the problem."

"Clear documentation reduces remediation time by 60%. When developers can immediately understand the problem, locate it in their code, and know exactly what success looks like, fixes happen quickly and correctly the first time," shares Robert Taylor, Lead Developer at a SaaS company.

Writing Clear, Actionable Recommendations

Recommendations should be specific enough that development teams can implement fixes without requiring deep accessibility expertise. Focus on practical solutions that fit within existing technical constraints and development workflows.

Issue Summary: Provide a one-sentence description that captures the essence of the problem. For example: "Form submit button cannot be activated with keyboard, preventing keyboard users from completing purchases."

Why It Matters: Explain the real-world impact on users, not just the technical violation. Connect the issue to business metrics where possible: "This barrier prevents approximately 2.2% of users from completing checkout, potentially costing $X in lost revenue annually."

How to Fix It: Provide specific technical steps using the project's actual technology stack. Instead of generic guidance, offer concrete code examples:

• Current: <div class="button" onclick="submitForm()">Submit</div>
• Recommended: <button type="submit" onclick="submitForm()">Submit</button>

Resources: Link to authoritative implementation guidance including MDN documentation, ARIA authoring practices, or framework-specific accessibility guides. Include multiple resources when different approaches exist.

Priority Level: Assign priority based on severity (how badly it affects users), scope (how many users are affected), and effort (how difficult to fix). Use a simple system like Critical/High/Medium/Low or P1/P2/P3 that aligns with your development team's existing prioritization framework.

"Actionable recommendations are the difference between a report that drives change and one that collects dust. We write recommendations as if we're pair programming with the developer—specific, practical, and immediately implementable," notes Carlos Rodriguez, Senior Accessibility Engineer at a digital agency.

Tools for Accessibility Auditing and Reporting

Effective accessibility audits combine multiple tool categories, each serving specific purposes in the evaluation process. Understanding tool capabilities and limitations ensures comprehensive assessment coverage.

Automated Scanners identify common issues quickly across multiple pages. Tools like axe DevTools, WAVE, and Lighthouse can evaluate hundreds of pages in minutes, flagging technical violations like missing alt attributes, improper heading structure, and insufficient color contrast. These tools excel at finding objective, measurable issues but cannot evaluate context or meaning. They might flag that an image has alt text but cannot determine if that alt text meaningfully describes the image's content and function.

Manual Testing Tools assist human reviewers in evaluating issues that require judgment. Screen readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver) reveal how assistive technology users experience your content. Browser extensions help test keyboard navigation, visualize tab order, and simulate various types of color blindness. Bookmarklets can quickly expose semantic structure, ARIA usage, and reading order. These tools augment human expertise but don't replace the need for knowledgeable reviewers.

Reporting Platforms organize findings and generate professional reports. Solutions like TestParty combine automated scanning with manual review workflows, centralizing findings in structured formats. These platforms maintain issue histories, track remediation progress, and generate compliance documentation. They transform raw testing data into actionable insights that stakeholders can understand and developers can implement.

Monitoring Tools track accessibility over time and alert teams to new issues. Continuous monitoring solutions integrate with CI/CD pipelines to catch accessibility regressions before they reach production. They establish baselines, measure improvement, and ensure that fixed issues stay fixed. This ongoing vigilance prevents accessibility debt from accumulating between formal audits.

"Tools are essential but not sufficient. The best accessibility outcomes come from combining automated scanning for broad coverage, expert manual review for nuanced issues, and continuous monitoring to maintain standards over time," advises Dr. Patricia Williams, Director of Digital Accessibility at a government agency.

Accessibility Audit Report Template and Examples

A standardized report structure ensures consistency across audits, making it easier to track progress over time and compare findings across different products or vendors. Organizations should adapt this template to their specific needs while maintaining the essential components.

Executive Summary (1-2 pages): High-level conformance statement declaring overall compliance status. Key findings summarizing the most critical issues and their business impact. Recommended actions outlining the path to compliance with timeline and resource estimates.

Background and Scope (2-3 pages): Organization and property details including URLs, technologies, and business context. Evaluation scope listing specific pages, features, and user journeys tested. Exclusions noting what wasn't tested and why, preventing scope creep disputes.

Methodology (1-2 pages): Testing approach combining automated and manual methods. Tools and versions used for evaluation. Assessor qualifications demonstrating expertise and credibility. Testing environment details including browsers, devices, and assistive technologies.

Detailed Findings (10-30 pages depending on scope): Issue-by-issue breakdown organized by WCAG principle or severity. Evidence including screenshots, code samples, and user impact descriptions. Success criterion mapping linking each issue to specific WCAG requirements. Severity and scope assessment for each issue.

Recommendations (5-15 pages): Prioritized remediation steps with specific technical guidance. Implementation roadmap showing phases and dependencies. Resource requirements estimating effort and expertise needed. Success metrics defining what "fixed" looks like for each issue.

References (1-2 pages): Links to WCAG documentation and techniques. Tool documentation and downloads. Additional learning resources for team education. Contact information for follow-up questions.

Appendices (variable length): Detailed tool reports from automated scanners. Full screenshot gallery documenting all issues. Code examples showing current and recommended implementations. Testing scripts for validation of fixes.

"Standardized templates improve audit quality and consistency. When every report follows the same structure, teams know exactly where to find the information they need, and nothing important gets overlooked," shares Michael Thompson, Accessibility Program Manager at a Fortune 500 company.

Next Steps: Get Your Accessibility Audit

Professional accessibility audits provide the foundation for meaningful digital inclusion and legal compliance. As regulations tighten and user expectations rise, regular auditing becomes essential for maintaining accessible digital experiences.

Expert Assessment: Trained accessibility professionals identify issues that automated tools miss—the nuanced problems that create real barriers for users with disabilities. Their expertise translates complex WCAG requirements into practical guidance your team can implement. They understand both the letter and spirit of accessibility standards, ensuring your remediation efforts create genuinely inclusive experiences, not just technical compliance.

Legal Documentation: Professional audit reports provide crucial evidence of good-faith compliance efforts. In potential litigation, these reports demonstrate that your organization takes accessibility seriously and is actively working to remove barriers. Courts look favorably on organizations that proactively identify and address accessibility issues rather than waiting for complaints or lawsuits.

Prioritized Roadmap: A professional audit delivers more than a list of problems—it provides a strategic plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. By prioritizing issues based on user impact and implementation effort, audits help you allocate resources efficiently and show measurable progress to stakeholders.

Accountability: Regular audits establish baselines and track improvement over time. They create accountability within your organization and demonstrate ongoing commitment to accessibility. This continuous improvement approach prevents accessibility debt from accumulating and ensures that new features maintain compliance standards.

"Annual accessibility audits have become as routine as financial audits for forward-thinking organizations. They're not just about avoiding lawsuits—they're about capturing the full market opportunity and building inclusive products that work for everyone," concludes Jennifer Adams, CEO of an e-commerce platform that increased conversions 12% after accessibility improvements.

Ready to understand your accessibility status and create a clear path to compliance? TestParty combines automated scanning with expert review to deliver comprehensive accessibility audit reports that drive real improvements. Our reports don't just identify problems—they provide the specific, actionable guidance your team needs to achieve and maintain WCAG compliance.

Book a demo to learn how TestParty streamlines accessibility auditing and reporting, helping you achieve compliance faster while building truly inclusive digital experiences.