Method

Accessibility audit: automated or manual?

What each approach detects, what it misses, and why the two are complementary.

To evaluate a site's accessibility, two approaches combine: automated tests and manual review. Understanding what each covers avoids false promises.

What automation detects very well

Automated test engines quickly spot a significant share of measurable problems: insufficient contrast, missing text alternatives, missing form labels, language attributes, basic structure. This is ideal for a fast baseline and for monitoring regressions.

What requires human judgement

Some criteria cannot be checked automatically: whether a text alternative is actually relevant, whether a journey is logical, whether a label is clear, whether ARIA is used correctly. A manual review, ideally with assistive technologies, remains necessary for full conformance.

The right combination

Automation gives breadth and speed; manual review gives nuance. Inclaria relies on a recognised audit engine to cover broadly and quickly, and the education provided explains what then requires human verification.