Skip to main content :::
:::

What Automated Accessibility Checks Can and Cannot Find

Automated checks are useful for missing labels, ARIA errors, some contrast and structure issues, but manual review is still needed for content, flows, keyboard operation, and assistive technology context.


Summary

  • Automated checks are a first filter, not the final conclusion.
  • They quickly surface some machine-detectable WCAG and best-practice issues.
  • Core task flows, content context, keyboard use, and assistive technology experience still need manual review.

Use it first to find obvious risks

Automated checks fit well in development, QA, content publishing, and pre-release review. They can quickly identify missing accessible names, ARIA errors, some contrast issues, form labels, and page structure problems.

The result should become a review list, not just a score to optimize.

Then complete the judgment manually

Manual review should cover key tasks: use only the keyboard, confirm focus order, check whether error messages help users continue, and review whether image alternatives fit the context.

For products used by many people, assistive technology testing and real user feedback should also be part of the process.

Connect both into one workflow

DevCheck can run machine checks in the current browser tab, then support manual review through focus path review, simulations, and AI-assisted suggestions. Pulse brings post-launch interaction barriers back into the team’s view.

  • Scan first: find machine-detectable risks.
  • Operate next: check keyboard, zoom, simulations, and key task flows.
  • Track later: observe reports and repeated interaction barriers after launch.

Related pages