Why Automated Accessibility Tools Miss The Most Important Issues
Many organisations are surprised when they discover that automated accessibility tools provide only a small part of the picture. These tools scan a website and deliver a neat report filled with scores and coloured indicators. The results often look impressive at first glance, especially when the page is full of green ticks. The question is whether these green ticks represent real accessibility or simply the absence of detectable code errors.
Automated tools are useful for basic checks. They highlight missing alt text, empty links and contrast problems. They can point out headings that break logical order. They offer a quick way to catch obvious issues. The problem is that accessibility is not a checklist. It is an experience, and that experience cannot be fully understood by a machine.
Machines Cannot Judge Real World Usability
Automated systems do not understand meaning or intention. They cannot tell whether a button is clear, whether instructions make sense or whether a form is genuinely usable. They only examine technical patterns. A form field might have a label, but if the label does not describe the purpose clearly, a screen reader user will still struggle.
Real accessibility depends on clarity, logic and ease of use. Machines cannot evaluate these qualities. They do not follow the path a user takes. They cannot feel confusion or frustration. They cannot decide whether a journey makes sense. Real accessibility requires human judgement.
Screen Reader Experience Cannot Be Simulated
Screen readers interpret websites through speech output. Automated tools can check for the presence of attributes, but they cannot read content the way a person does. They cannot detect irrelevant noise, confusing repetition or poor structural hierarchy.
A website might pass with a high score while still being extremely difficult for a screen reader user to navigate. A machine only looks for the existence of elements, not the quality of the experience. This is why real user testing is essential. It reveals what machines cannot.
Keyboard Navigation Problems Often Go Undetected
Automated tools do not navigate through a page using the keyboard. They do not test whether focus is visible, whether tab order makes sense or whether interactive elements behave correctly. Many critical issues appear only when someone tries to use a website without a mouse.
For example, a pop up that traps focus can block the entire site for a keyboard user. A machine will not notice this because it does not operate the interface the way a person does. Real testing exposes the points where users get stuck.
Mobile Accessibility Is Often Overlooked
Automated tools focus on code structure, not on layout shifts or responsive behaviour. Many barriers emerge when someone uses a mobile device with screen zoom, high contrast settings or assistive technology. Machines cannot adjust text size, change colour settings or interact with touch gestures in a meaningful way.
Users with visual impairments regularly adapt their devices to suit their needs. Automated reports do not take any of this into account. Real accessibility requires consideration of how a website behaves across different environments.
Context Matters More Than Code
Accessibility depends on context. A perfectly coded element can still be inaccessible if it is placed in a confusing position or surrounded by unclear content. Machines evaluate isolated elements. They do not understand purpose or flow.
People interact with websites in sequence. They move through steps, follow information and make decisions. Automated tools cannot capture any of this. They do not understand whether a journey is logical or whether instructions support the user.
The Value Of Human Expertise
Human testers bring perspective that machines cannot. They highlight genuine barriers, explain why something is difficult and demonstrate how design choices affect real people. Their feedback is based on experience, not patterns.
Organisations gain far more value from human insight than from a machine score. Automated reports can support the process, but they should never define it. They offer a starting point, not a final answer.
The insights discovered during this work are brought together in our structured accessibility audit which explains what needs attention and why it matters.
Long Term Improvement Requires Human Understanding
Automation is fast, but improvement takes time. Organisations learn the most when they understand the real challenges faced by their users. Human centred feedback leads to better decisions and stronger long term results.
When accessibility is approached with a human perspective, websites become clearer, easier and more trustworthy. Automated tools play a small role in the process. Real improvement happens when people are involved.
