Soft Compliance: Where Web Accessibility Audit Reports Fall Behind

For EdTech companies and key decision-makers, ensuring product accessibility is essential for market success.  Every product, when ready for market release, must include a compliance document, and this is where the VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) comes into play. The VPAT can only be delivered once a detailed audit is completed, including manual and automated tests conducted by people with disabilities. The final outcome of the audit is the Web Audit Accessibility Report.

Platforms like the W3C web accessibility audit report generator offer a powerful glimpse into the accessibility shortcomings of edtech products and platforms. By employing web accessibility audit tools, edtech leaders can easily enhance accessibility, interaction, and engagement. While these automated tools present multiple insights for companies, the accessibility implications of these tools demand an all-encompassing solution in the form of manual testing conducted by native users with disabilities.

 

Automated Testing: Choosing Efficiency Over Effectiveness

It is natural for businesses to focus only on automated audits because they solve a majority of their purposes. Often, web pages are large and complex which makes accessibility audits time and cost intensive. Tools can quickly scan large volumes of content and code at low costs, optimizing the market launch of the product. This can also be helpful in the case of regular content updates. Also, they cover a broad spectrum of accessibility compliance standards ensuring that the basic requirements are met. The reality though is that automated tools can result in a superficial and incomplete understanding of a website’s accessibility.

To begin with, only 30%-40% of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines can be tested via automation. Not having manual intervention puts the remaining coverage required to achieve compliance at risk.

Automated tools rely on predefined rules or templates to test for accessibility compliance. However, they might miss important user-specific needs. For instance, an automated tool might verify the presence of a voice recognition system, but it can’t assess how effectively it works for individuals with speech impairments or diverse accents—this requires real-world testing. Similarly, while these tools can measure color contrast and text size, they may not evaluate how augmented reality overlays perform in different lighting conditions or from various distances. Another example is touch interface responsiveness; an automated tool can confirm that touch functions are enabled, but it may not detect issues related to users with limited dexterity, who may struggle with small or closely placed touch targets. These nuances highlight the need for comprehensive manual testing to ensure true accessibility.

The lack of contextual understanding also manifests in the form of false positives where tools flag issues that may not actually impact accessibility. An image is flagged for missing alt text even though it is purely decorative and appropriately marked. This can lead to unresourcefulness as developers attempt to fix problems that aren’t genuine accessibility barriers.

On the contrary, automated tools may approve a website based on surface-level checks, even if it lacks core accessibility features. A website might pass automated checks for ARIA roles and labels but could still be unusable for screen reader users due to poor navigation structure or incorrect or missing ARIA roles.

Which begs the question: How thin is the line between accessibility and true user-friendliness? And are the potential time and cost savings truly worth the risk of letting critical accessibility challenges be overlooked in web accessibility audit reports?

 

Manual Testing: Striking The Right Balance

Accessibility is a very subjective concern and oftentimes shortcomings surface during real-time navigation. Hence, addressing as many user contexts as possible not only fulfills the ethical obligations but also serves the interest of the edtech developer.

Primarily, user impairments fall into four broad buckets: visual, motor, cognitive, and hearing. The WCAG guidelines outline comprehensive recommendations accommodating users in each of these categories.

Color contrast checkers, text-to-speech provisions, simplified user interfaces with interactive elements like buttons and links, keyboard shortcuts, and the use of illustrations and multimedia are just a few of the mandates by the W3C for web accessibility compliance. For example, while automated tools might check if a button is accessible via keyboard, they may not reveal issues like how easily users with limited dexterity can accurately target and activate the button in different contexts. Manual testing can uncover such practical challenges, ensuring a more comprehensive assessment of accessibility

Manual testing involves real users, including those with disabilities to help identify more nuanced issues.

Evaluators perform continuous testing throughout the development process to catch and address accessibility issues early. This renders a more contextual understanding of functions and leads to authentic developments.

For example, having users with visual impairments test a website’s screen reader functionality can show whether all content is properly read aloud and if navigation is intuitive. Similarly, testing a mobile app with users who have limited fine motor skills can reveal whether touch targets are large enough and if gestures are easy to perform. These real-world tests help identify practical issues that automated tools might miss, ensuring the product is truly accessible for everyone.

 

Creating All Encompassing Web Accessibility Audit Reports

EdTech companies might view web accessibility audit reports as an additional expense, but in reality, accessibility boosts the company’s market position and builds a strong reputation with users. Using both automated and manual testing is crucial for achieving this. By actively employing both methods, EdTech teams can enhance their products’ accessibility and strengthen their credibility, rather than just meeting compliance requirements.

While automated tools have limitations, manual testing has its own set of requirements. User tests are labor-intensive. Finding users with diverse disabilities can be challenging and time-consuming for edtech developers. Additionally, expert evaluators are required for appropriate amendments.

MagicEdtech can be instrumental in achieving this by offering a rigorous structure that seamlessly integrates both manual and automated testing processes for making edtech products accessibility compliant. Our AI-driven tool MagicA11y can streamline the auditing process with an automated and manual test approach, ensuring that the educational platform meets accessibility standards without compromising on speed or resources. To know more about your accessibility shortcomings, reach out to us today.