Reasons to move forward
Continue when these are mostly true.
- The scope and methods are stated plainly.
- Automated and manual findings are separated.
- Barriers are tied to users and tasks.
- Retesting records what changed and what remains open.
Decision guide
What makes an accessibility review meaningful?
A useful review connects technical evidence to the tasks real people need to complete. It explains the barrier, the likely effect, the correction, and what still needs human testing.
Four questions
Pause here before choosing.
You do not need perfect answers. The point is to make the uncertainty visible.
What is included?
Name the pages, components, documents, devices, states, and user journeys under review.
What evidence is automated?
Record the tool, rules, date, page state, and limits instead of turning the result into a universal score.
What is checked by hand?
Include keyboard use, focus, zoom, reflow, forms, errors, language, reading order, and relevant assistive technology.
Can another person reproduce the issue?
Each finding should explain the location, steps, affected users, expected behavior, and smallest useful correction.
Reasons to pause
Wait when these remain unresolved.
- One score is presented as proof of accessibility.
- Only the home page was scanned.
- No keyboard or human review occurred.
- The report lists code rules but not user consequences.
A simple starting point
Want help applying this guide to a real situation?
Share the question and enough non-sensitive context to understand it.