Resources · 22
Evaluate web accessibility through journeys and evidence
Set a scope, test essential tasks and document fixes that can be verified.
· 19 min
What this guide helps achieve
- Scope the evaluation
- Select journeys
- Combine methods
- Verify fixes
Quick check
- Which tasks and people must be covered?
- Which templates, languages and interactive states represent the product?
- Can the journey be completed with keyboard and zoom?
- Are alternatives and messages understandable?
- Has every fix been retested?
Step-by-step method
- 01
Define scope
Specify product, versions, languages, technologies, journeys and target WCAG level. Include error states, forms and essential content.
Deliverable: scope and reference criteria.
- 02
Explore and sample
Inventory templates, components, journeys and variations. Select representative views including critical pages and interactive states; record exclusions.
Deliverable: reasoned list of views to test.
- 03
Run initial checks
Use automated tools to find some errors, then manually check keyboard, focus, zoom, structure, labels, alternatives and form errors.
Deliverable: reproducible observations with context.
- 04
Test complete tasks
Follow journeys end to end, including state changes, validation and confirmation. Involve affected users where possible to understand real effects.
Deliverable: journey log and observed barriers.
- 05
Report with limits
Tie each finding to a view, reproduction steps, applicable criterion, effect and proposed fix. A tool alone cannot establish overall conformance.
Deliverable: prioritised report with scope and limits.
- 06
Fix and retest
Verify changes with the same journeys and suitable tools, then check shared components and regressions before closure.
Deliverable: retest evidence and correction record.
Management indicators
| Indicator | What it measures | First action |
|---|---|---|
| Journeys covered | Essential tasks evaluated end to end | Add omitted journeys |
| Reproducible findings | Barriers with exact steps and context | Clarify vague reports |
| Fixes retested | Resolved findings verified again | Revisit open cases |
| Shared components | Fixes checked across templates | Correct the common source |
Common pitfalls
- Equating a tool score with WCAG conformance
- Testing only the home page
- Missing error states or localised content
- Closing a ticket without replaying the journey
Frequently asked questions
Is an automated scanner sufficient?
No. Automation finds some errors; usability and many criteria need human evaluation.
Must every URL be tested?
A structured method may use representative sampling while covering essential views and tasks and documenting its limits.
What does “conformant” mean?
A conformance statement requires an explicit scope and complete evaluation against applicable criteria. This guide organises the work; it does not issue certification.
Official references
Continue exploring
Related analysis
