Why Automated Tools Miss Real Accessibility Problems
Many organisations begin their accessibility journey by running an automated scan. These tools are quick, inexpensive, and can highlight obvious technical issues. However, they often create a false sense of reassurance.
Automated tools can only detect a limited subset of problems. They cannot judge usability, clarity, or real human experience. Passing a scan does not mean a website is usable for disabled people in practice.
This is where misunderstandings often begin.
What Automated Testing Can And Cannot Do
Automated testing is useful for spotting surface level issues such as missing labels, colour contrast failures, or incorrect heading structures. These checks form a helpful starting point.
However, automated tools cannot determine whether content makes sense when read aloud, whether navigation is intuitive using only a keyboard, or whether instructions are understandable without visual cues.
They also cannot simulate how real assistive technologies behave across different browsers, devices, and configurations.
The Human Experience Tools Cannot Measure
Accessibility is not only about code. It is about experience.
A screen reader user may technically be able to access a page, but still struggle to understand its purpose. A keyboard user may reach every element, but find the order confusing or exhausting. A person with cognitive impairments may find language overwhelming even when it meets technical guidelines.
These issues are invisible to automated testing.
They are only uncovered through observation, conversation, and lived experience.
Why Manual Testing Changes Everything
Manual testing involves people using assistive technologies to complete real tasks. It focuses on journeys rather than isolated errors.
This approach reveals issues such as unclear link purpose, repeated content, poor focus management, and confusing error handling. These are often the barriers that prevent users from completing essential actions like filling out forms or making payments.
A web accessibility audit that includes manual testing bridges the gap between compliance and usability, ensuring that technical fixes translate into meaningful improvements.
Reducing Risk Through Real Insight
Relying solely on automated tools can increase risk rather than reduce it. Organisations may believe they are compliant while users continue to face barriers.
Manual testing provides context. It explains not only what is wrong, but why it matters and who it affects. This clarity allows teams to prioritise effectively and make informed decisions.
It also supports stronger accessibility statements and more defensible compliance positions.
Building Accessibility Into Ongoing Practice
Accessibility is not a one off exercise. Websites evolve, content changes, and new features are introduced. Each change can introduce new barriers.
Combining automated tools with periodic manual testing creates a sustainable approach. Automated checks can flag regressions quickly, while human testing ensures quality and usability remain central.
This balance helps organisations move beyond tick box compliance and towards genuine inclusion.