Automatic accessibility validation tools, are they good or not?

In an inclusive digital creation approach, web accessibility is an essential pillar. Many teams are integrating automatic validation tools into their verification process. These tools are useful, but they can in no way replace manual validation conducted by an expert. 

The limitations of automatic validation tools 

Automatic tools can quickly detect certain types of technical errors, such as missing alt tags, insufficient contrast, errors in the HTML code, and more. However, they only cover about 30-35% of accessibility issues. This number may vary depending on the complexity of the website or application, but it illustrates a reality: most problems go unnoticed if you limit yourself to automated analysis. 

Let's take the example of images. An automated tool can confirm that alt text is present, but it does not assess its relevance. It will not be able to identify a decorative image that has been associated with unnecessary text, or poorly written text that detracts from the user experience. 

Another critical example is the focus path, i.e. keyboard navigation. This dimension is essential for people who use a screen reader or cannot use a mouse. Still, the logic of this journey is not something that an automatic tool can reliably verify. 

The essential role of manual evaluation 

At Ciao, manual evaluation is always the first step. We use assistive tools such as screen readers, browser extensions, contrast tests, and keyboard navigation to evaluate interfaces against WCAG criteria. 

Once this evaluation has been made, automatic tools are used as a complement, at the end of the process. They serve as a quick check to detect obvious omissions or recurring errors. This dual level of control provides a more complete and reliable view of a digital product's accessibility. 

Should we use automatic tools? 

The answer is yes, but with nuance. These tools are a great place to start. They make it possible to quickly identify certain problems and to raise awareness of good practices among the teams. But they should never be considered sufficient on their own. 

Relying solely on automatic validation means exposing yourself to missing important errors, even blocking errors, for some users. This defeats the goals of inclusion, compliance, and quality user experience. 

Coming soon! A practical guide to help you 

To support the teams in their approach, we have designed a practical guide on the accessibility life cycle. This guide will contain: 

• A list of recommended tools for automatic validation; 

• A comprehensive checklist for conducting a rigorous manual assessment; 

• Concrete advice on how to integrate accessibility into every stage of your digital projects. 

Stick around for the announcement, and let’s talk about your project!