A web accessibility audit goes beyond automated tools. Here's how Blend combines automated scanning and manual testing to find real issues and fix them for good.
Not every user experiences a website the same way. Some rely on screen readers to navigate content they can’t see. Others move through a page entirely by keyboard, never touching a mouse. Some depend on captions or transcripts to access audio and video.
For some, these experiences are easy to overlook — not out of indifference, but because they’re simply not the experience most of us have every day. Either way, when a site isn't built with accessibility in mind, users with disabilities are often left behind.
How automated tools start the process — and where they fall short.
That's why we go further than a quick scan. We dig deeper — combining automated tools with real-world testing to uncover issues and make sure websites meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 AA.
Automated tools are a useful starting point — they crawl a site efficiently and flag things like missing image descriptions, poor color contrast, and structural gaps. A tool like SortSite helps identify pages that may contain WCAG accessibility errors and provides detailed explanations and suggested fixes for each detected issue, while a visual tool like Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (WAVE) highlights issues visually — like missing form labels, contrast problems, or structural gaps — so we can see exactly what’s happening and how it impacts the user experience.
Why manual testing with screen readers matters.
But automated tools can’t catch everything — they see the code, not the experience. A tool can confirm that an image has an alt attribute; it can't tell you whether that description actually makes sense to someone who can't see the image.
That gap is why manual testing matters. We walk through sites using screen readers — the same assistive technology many users with visual impairments rely on every day. This helps us catch real-world usability issues that automated tools might miss, like confusing navigation or unclear content flow.
How findings are sorted and handed off.
Once the audit is complete, we sort findings into two categories before we meet with our clients. Some issues are editorial — things a content editor can fix directly in the CMS, like rewriting link text or adding a missing image description. Others require development work: fixing heading structures, correcting how interactive elements are labeled, addressing issues in the underlying code.
We walk through all of it with you and your project manager. Editorial issues can typically be addressed directly within the site’s content, while development issues are documented as tickets and prioritized to ensure they are resolved efficiently.
The goal: a site that works for every user.
This structured process helps us provide clear recommendations and practical solutions for improving accessibility across the entire website. It’s not just about meeting standards — it’s about making your site work better for every user, with clear findings and solutions that last.
