WCAG audits that show what blocks people and how to fix it
We test your website or app against WCAG 2.2 level AA with automated scans, keyboards, screen readers and zoom. Your developers get every issue mapped to a success criterion, ranked by impact, with the fix written out.
Updated
What is a WCAG audit?
A WCAG audit is a structured test of a website or app against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the W3C. Testers combine automated scans with manual checks using a keyboard, screen readers and browser zoom, then report each failure against a numbered success criterion, with its severity, where it occurs and how to fix it.
- Standard
- WCAG 2.2 level AA by default, or the version and level your contract or regulator names
- Methods
- Automated scans of every page, then manual testing of templates, forms and key journeys
- Tools
- axe-core, Lighthouse, VoiceOver, NVDA, TalkBack, keyboard only, 200 and 400 percent zoom
- Output
- Issue log mapped to WCAG criteria, fix guidance, management summary, retest, accessibility statement draft
We ran the audit on anzum.com first
Before offering WCAG audits we put our own website through the same process. This is what we tested, what we found and what we changed, so you can see the kind of evidence an audit produces.
Tested
- 295pages scannedEvery English and Arabic page in our sitemaps, at desktop width, with axe-core 4.11 and the WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 A and AA rules.
- 17templates on a phoneOne page of each template scanned again at 375 pixels wide.
- 18templates by keyboardTabbed through end to end at 1440 pixels, then checked at 320 pixels with WCAG text spacing applied.
What we found and what we changed
| Success criterion | Level | What we found | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.4.10 Reflow | AA | Eight templates scrolled sideways at 320 pixels. Hover rows and a 300 pixel bot check widget were wider than a small phone screen. | Fixed |
| 1.4.11 Non-text contrast | AA | Form field borders had a contrast of 1.26:1 against white, so the edge of each field was hard to see. | Fixed, now 3.7:1 |
| 1.4.3 Contrast (minimum) | AA | Comments inside code samples on one article were 3.8:1 on the dark code background. | Fixed, now 9.7:1 |
| 4.1.2 Name, role, value | A | An archive article embedded two videos with no frame title, so screen readers announced them only as "frame". | Fixed |
| 1.3.1 Info and relationships | A | The "Talk to us" bar shown on phones sat outside any page landmark, and one archive article used headings inside table cells. | Fixed |
| 1.1.1 Non-text content | A | A manual review of the 39 images in our archive articles found 14 with an empty text alternative and 3 named after their file, and two of those 17 images no longer existed. Scanners accept an empty one, so only a person could catch this. | Fixed |
| 2.4.7 Focus visible | AA | The bot check widget on our contact form adds three keyboard stops without a visible focus style. It is supplied by a third party. | Open, reported in our statement |
Text contrast passed on every page we scanned apart from those code comments, because the colour system was designed to the stricter 7:1 ratio before the site was built. There was no missing image text, no unlabeled form field and no empty link or button in our own code, the skip link worked, and no template trapped the keyboard.
Automated tools cannot judge everything, so the manual screen reader passes come next, and the results will be added to our accessibility statement.
Read our accessibility statementWhat a WCAG 2.2 audit covers
WCAG groups its success criteria under four principles. We test each one on the pages and journeys that matter most to your business.
Perceivable
Text alternatives for images and icons, captions and transcripts for video, colour contrast for text and controls, content that reflows at 320 pixels and survives 200 percent text zoom.
Operable
Every action works with a keyboard, focus is visible and never hidden behind sticky headers, no keyboard traps, skip links, touch targets large enough to hit, and nothing that depends on dragging alone.
Understandable
Page language set correctly, labels and instructions on every field, clear error messages with suggestions, help in the same place on each page, and no need to type the same information twice.
Robust
Correct names, roles and states for custom components such as menus, tabs, dialogs and carousels, and status messages that screen readers announce without moving focus.
Automated scan or full audit?
Free scanners are a useful first step, and we use them too. They test what code can prove, and they cannot tell whether a page makes sense to a person using assistive technology.
| Topic | Automated scan | Full WCAG audit |
|---|---|---|
| Pages covered | Every page, quickly | Every page by scan, plus templates and journeys by hand |
| Missing alt text, labels, contrast | Found | Found, and the alt text itself is judged for meaning |
| Keyboard traps and focus order | Not found | Tested on every interactive component |
| Screen reader experience | Not tested | Tested with VoiceOver, NVDA and TalkBack |
| Forms and error recovery | Partly | Each form completed and failed on purpose |
| Priority and fix guidance | Generic rule text | Ranked by impact, with code-level fixes for your stack |
| Evidence for a buyer or regulator | A score | A report mapped to every success criterion |
What changed in WCAG 2.2
The W3C published WCAG 2.2 in October 2023. It adds nine success criteria to WCAG 2.1, six of them at levels A and AA, and removes 4.1.1 Parsing. An audit against 2.1 alone misses these.
| Success criterion | Level | What it asks for |
|---|---|---|
| 2.4.11 Focus not obscured (minimum) | AA | A focused element is never fully hidden by sticky headers, cookie banners or chat widgets. |
| 2.5.7 Dragging movements | AA | Anything done by dragging, such as sliders or sortable lists, also works with a single click or tap. |
| 2.5.8 Target size (minimum) | AA | Click and tap targets are at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, or have enough space around them. |
| 3.2.6 Consistent help | A | Help options such as contact details or chat appear in the same place on every page. |
| 3.3.7 Redundant entry | A | People are not asked to type the same information twice in one process. |
| 3.3.8 Accessible authentication (minimum) | AA | Logging in does not depend on a memory or puzzle test unless an alternative is offered. |
Which standard applies to you
Most accessibility laws point to WCAG at level AA, but not always the same version. We audit against WCAG 2.2 AA by default because it includes everything in 2.1 and 2.0, and we can report against an older version when a contract asks for it. This is general information, not legal advice.
| Rule | Who it covers | Technical standard |
|---|---|---|
| European Accessibility Act | Many consumer products and services sold in the EU, including e-commerce and banking, from 28 June 2025 | EN 301 549, which uses WCAG 2.1 AA for web content |
| ADA Title II rule | US state and local government websites and apps. In 2026 the Department of Justice moved the first compliance date to April 2027 | WCAG 2.1 AA |
| Section 508 | US federal agencies and what they buy | WCAG 2.0 AA |
| UK public sector regulations | Public sector bodies in the UK | WCAG 2.2 AA in current government guidance |
How the audit runs
Scope
We agree the standard, the templates, the key journeys (such as sign up, checkout or booking) and the assistive technology to test with.
Automated sweep
Every page in your sitemap is scanned at desktop and phone widths, so nothing is missed between templates.
Manual testing
Each template and journey is tested with a keyboard, screen readers, zoom and text spacing, criterion by criterion.
Report and fix sessions
You receive the issue log and summary, and we walk your developers through the fixes, or make them ourselves.
Retest and statement
Once fixes are released we retest every issue and draft your accessibility statement.
What we will not sell you
No overlay widgets
Toolbars that promise compliance with one line of script do not fix the underlying code, and they can get in the way of the screen readers people already use.
No certificates or badges
There is no official WCAG certificate. We report conformance with evidence for each criterion and say so plainly.
No legal opinions
We tell you which criteria fail and how to fix them. Questions about your legal duties belong with a lawyer.
Questions we are often asked
What is a WCAG audit?
A WCAG audit tests a website or app against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines from the W3C. It combines automated scans with manual testing using a keyboard, screen readers and zoom, and reports every failure against a numbered success criterion with its severity and fix.
Which WCAG version and level should we test against?
WCAG 2.2 level AA in most cases. It is the current W3C recommendation, it includes every criterion in 2.1 and 2.0, and level AA is the level most laws and contracts refer to. If a contract or regulator names another version, we test against that one as well.
Is an automated accessibility scan enough?
No. Scanners find issues that code can prove, such as missing labels or low contrast. Keyboard traps, confusing reading order, unclear link text and how a screen reader announces a custom menu need a person testing with assistive technology.
How long does a WCAG audit take?
It depends on the number of templates, journeys and platforms in scope. After a short scoping call we send a plan that lists exactly what will be tested and when you will receive each report.
How much does a WCAG audit cost?
We quote each audit after scoping, because the work depends on how many templates, forms and journeys you have and whether apps or PDF documents are included.
Can you fix the accessibility issues too?
Yes. Our developers can make the fixes on WordPress, WooCommerce, Shopify, custom web apps and mobile apps, or we work alongside your team and review their changes before release, then retest.
Do you test Arabic and other right-to-left pages?
Yes. We check language attributes, reading and focus order, mirrored layouts and screen reader pronunciation on every language version in scope, including right-to-left pages.
Will the audit certify our website as accessible?
No one can issue an official WCAG certificate. We report conformance against each success criterion with evidence, and we draft an accessibility statement that describes your conformance and any known limitations.
Tell us what you want to build, fix or grow
We reply within one working day with questions or a short plan.