Web Accessibility Evaluation

No. Automated tools are valuable for quickly catching machine-detectable issues like missing alternative text, empty labels, low contrast, and invalid markup, and they scale across many pages. But they can reliably test only a minority of WCAG success criteria, because most criteria depend on human judgment—whether alt text actually conveys an image's meaning, whether reading order is logical, whether a custom widget is operable and correctly announced. Relying on a scanner alone gives a false sense of accessibility. A sound evaluation uses automated checks as a first sweep, then adds manual expert inspection and testing with assistive technologies.

POUR is the four principles WCAG organizes around: content must be Perceivable (users can sense it, e.g., text alternatives and contrast), Operable (users can interact with it, e.g., keyboard access and enough time), Understandable (readable and predictable), and Robust (works with current and future assistive technologies). Each principle contains success criteria assigned a conformance level—A (essential), AA (addresses major barriers and the common legal target), and AAA (the highest, not expected for whole sites). Conforming at a level requires meeting every applicable criterion at that level and below; AA conformance therefore includes all A criteria too.

Not necessarily. WCAG conformance is a strong, testable baseline and is what laws and policies reference, but it certifies technical conformance to success criteria rather than a good experience. Content can satisfy every criterion and still be confusing, inefficient, or frustrating for real users. That is why a thorough evaluation includes testing with the assistive technologies people actually use, and why conformance work is best complemented by usability testing with disabled participants on the most important journeys. Conformance establishes the floor; lived usability confirms whether the content truly works.