Accessibility Testing and the Journey Toward Digital Inclusion

The Evolution of Digital Accessibility

In the early days of the Internet—when we used to write it with a capital letter—accessibility was rarely a consideration. Websites were built to manifest online presence and demonstrate the tech advancement. As time passed, brands started paying more attention to functionality and convenience. Next, visual appeal became the primary focus. And in most cases, users with disabilities weren’t taken into account.

It all started to change when the first iteration of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) emerged in 1999. Yet, its implementation remained sporadic and superficial for many years. Accessibility remained an afterthought for the majority—a box to check just before launch or, more commonly, after receiving complaints.

The landscape began to shift in the mid-2000s. Legal actions against major corporations highlighted the importance of digital accessibility. Landmark cases against Target (2006) and Netflix (2012) set precedents that would reshape how businesses approached their digital properties. And even after that, software accessibility testing remained largely reactive rather than proactive.

By 2010, mobile devices had dramatically altered the way we use software. Suddenly, developers needed to ensure applications worked across multiple screen sizes, input methods, and contexts. A smartphone becoming a gadget for everyday use created an opening for accessibility considerations.

It turned out that the principles of responsive design often aligned with the best practices of software accessibility. Teams began recognizing the parallels between designing for different devices and designing for different abilities. Though empathy and responsibility weren’t the primary factors shaping and enabling digital accessibility, they played an important role in establishing the right regulations.

We saw WCAG evolve through multiple iterations, with WCAG 2.0 becoming an ISO standard in 2012, followed by WCAG 2.1 in 2018. The UK, EU, USA, and a bunch of other countries and regions declared compliance with the set accessibility standards mandatory for all digital products and services. All existing websites and apps were given a few years to fully adapt their design and functionality.

From Compliance to Comprehensive Inclusion

Testing methodologies evolved in parallel. Early accessibility testing in software testing relied heavily on manual reviews against checklists. While effective, these approaches couldn’t scale with the explosive growth of digital content that constantly expands an initial accessibility testing checklist. Automated testing tools emerged to fill the gap.

Even though automation is not a substitute for manual testing and can only be effective for specific checks, it accelerates and facilitates the testing process. The most effective testing programs started to combine automated scanning with manual expert reviews.

Today’s accessibility testing went even further. Teams are gradually becoming able to incorporate artificial intelligence into their QA frameworks to identify patterns and predict issues earlier in development. Machine learning algorithms can now detect potential accessibility barriers in design mockups before a single line of code is written.

These advances have helped shift accessibility testing further left in the development lifecycle, reducing costs and improving outcomes.

What Is Accessibility Testing in Software Testing?

Let’s start with the fundamentals of accessibility testing.

Accessibility is the degree to which a component or system can be used by people with the widest range of characteristics and capabilities to achieve a specified goal in a specified context of use.

Accessibility testing is an assessment of software that looks specifically into the availability and convenience of the digital product for different user groups.

Accessibility testing is guided by several important standards and regulations:

• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)—the most widely recognized standard globally.
• EN 301 549—the European accessibility standard that applies to public sector websites and applications.
• Equality Act 2010—the UK act that legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society, a part of which focuses on accessibility.
• The Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations 2018—the UK legislation that demands all Public Sector software to be made accessible.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability.
• Section 508—part of the Rehabilitation Act that requires federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines define four principles laying the foundation necessary for anyone to access and use Web content. For QA engineers, these principles are known as a single abbreviation—POUR:

• Perceivable. Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive (it can’t be invisible to all of their senses).
• Operable. User interface components and navigation must be operable (the interface cannot require interaction that a user cannot perform).
• Understandable. Information and the operation ofthe user interface must be understandable (the content or operation cannot be beyond their understanding).
• Robust. Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents (including assistive technologies).

These principles provide the framework for accessibility testing. They organize the guidelines and success criteria for comprehensive software quality assurance.

Common Accessibility Barriers

The purpose of accessibility testing is to identify the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from using digital products effectively. Some of the most common barriers are:

• Missing alternative text for images that interfere with understanding visual content for screen reader users.
• Keyboard traps that prevent keyboard-only users from navigating through a page.
• Low-contrast text that is difficult for people with low vision to read.
• Missing form labels that make forms difficult to understand for screen reader users.
• Absence of captions on videos that creates barriers for deaf and hard-of-hearing users.
• Time-limited functionality that doesn’t provide sufficient time for people who may need longer to complete tasks.

These are just a few examples that illustrate how easy it is to overlook the needs of your users. What’s more, the barriers will vary based on the tech stack. For example, a mobile app and a website accessibility testing checklist will have a lot of points in common, but they won’t be identical.

Identifying these barriers requires a combination of technical knowledge, attention to detail, and diverse testing methodologies.

Accessibility Testing Approaches

Accessibility software testing doesn’t limit itself to manual or automated testing only. On the contrary, it’s often more effective when the QA strategy combines several methods and approaches—both in terms of technical resources and involvement. Understanding the unique strengths and limitations of each will help you achieve the right test coverage.

Manual Testing

As the name suggests, manual testing services involve manual test execution. QA engineers methodically examine digital products against accessibility criteria. This includes, among other things:

• Keyboard navigation testing to verify that all functionality can be accessed and operated using only a keyboard. QA engineers navigate through the application using Tab, Enter, Escape, and other keys. They check for proper focus indicators, logical tab order, and the absence of keyboard traps.
• Screen reader testing to evaluate how well content is communicated through assistive technology. QA engineers use screen readers to navigate through the application. They assess whether information and functionality are properly conveyed via audio feedback.
• Visual inspection to check for adequate color contrast, text resizing capabilities, and proper visual focus indicators. QA engineers may use browser extensions to simulate various visual conditions or simply adjust display settings.
• Cognitive reviews to assess the clarity of instructions, consistency of navigation, and predictability of interactions. QA engineers evaluate how easily users with cognitive disabilities can understand and use the application.

The strength of manual testing lies in its ability to identify contextual issues and evaluate the actual user experience. That’s something software accessibility testing tools or AI won’t be able to handle in the near future (or ever, let’s be honest). However, manual testing can be time-consuming. The accuracy of the results may vary based on a specialist’s expertise. That’s why we don’t recommend leaving testing for the in-house team with no QA engineers in it.

Automated Testing

Automated accessibility testing for software uses special tools (other software) to scan digital products for compliance with technical accessibility requirements. This approach offers several advantages:

• Scale. Automated tools can quickly scan entire websites or applications, identifying patterns of issues across many pages. Tests can run in parallel for different configurations, covering a variety of devices or scenarios at once.
• Consistency. Tools apply the same rules consistently. In other words, you reduce the probability of human error to the minimum, eliminating variations in human judgment.
• Integration. Many automated tools can be integrated into development pipelines for continuous testing. The checks will start every time software engineers deploy the new code.
• Documentation. The results and summaries are also automated. The tools typically generate comprehensive reports that can be used to track progress over time.

Specialized tools can identify technical violations such as missing alt text, improper heading structures, and insufficient color contrast. However, automated testing has significant limitations. For example, it struggles with subjective assessments. The tools will tell if the alternative text is present or missing, but they cannot evaluate its appropriateness, the logical order of content, or the clarity of error messages.

User Testing with People with Disabilities

Perhaps the most valuable form of accessibility testing involves people with disabilities using the product in real-world scenarios. This approach provides the most accurate insights, for instance:

• How people with different disabilities actually use assistive technologies.
• Whether technically compliant solutions are genuinely usable and efficient.
• Unexpected barriers or workarounds that technical testing might miss.
• The emotional impact of accessibility barriers on real users.

User testing typically involves recruiting participants with various disabilities, defining representative tasks, observing participants as they complete these tasks, and collecting feedback about their experiences. This qualitative data helps prioritize fixes based on actual user impact rather than technical severity alone.

Meanwhile, it’s not easy to arrange, and it’s not a task for a QA company or team to handle. User testing requires specific expertise in UX research and involving the corresponding professionals. On the bright side, user testing is not obligatory. In most cases, an experienced QA engineer will account for 99% of scenarios.

Hybrid Approaches

Most effective accessibility testing programs combine multiple approaches. For example, start with automated scans to quickly identify obvious technical issues and patterns across the application. Continue with expert manual testing to find issues that automation misses and provide context around technical violations. Add user testing at the later stages if you have the budget for it to validate solutions and identify real-world usage barriers.

The Accessibility Testing Challenge for Product Teams

Many product teams still struggle with implementing effective accessibility testing. The reasons can be different:

• Internal expertise gaps, with no QA engineers involved or few team members having an understanding of why software accessibility is critical.
• Tight development timelines, squeezing testing phases, with accessibility being among the casualties.
• The complexity of modern applications, with rich interactions, dynamic content, and multiple platforms, making comprehensive testing difficult.

There’s one more thing easy to overlook. Accessibility testing requires both technical knowledge and an empathetic understanding of diverse user needs. QA engineers, with their attention to detail and set into a mode to find the flaws, have the right mix of skills and a mindset to run effective accessibility assessments.

The Value of Professional Accessibility Testing Services

What are the best software accessibility testing services? They are those with professional QA engineers planning and running the tests. Specialized QA expertise brings transformative value, whether it’s in-house hiring or outsourced accessibility testing services.

Professional QA engineers are familiar with the testing methodologies, tools, and accessibility requirements. They have a general framework ready to adapt and apply to your product. More importantly, the niche knowledge helps them look into areas that the rest of the tech team is likely to ignore and find “unpredictable” hidden issues.

QA engineers don’t just identify issues. They write detailed reports, help you understand the context, prioritize the defects, and often help prevent problems in the future. In practical terms, it means fewer to no bugs in production, quicker turnaround times, and higher confidence in your software.

Selecting the Right Accessibility Testing Partner

How to choose a reliable accessibility testing partner? It’s best to look into several aspects at once: testing capabilities, soft skills, business values, and complementary expertise. Here are a few criteria to pay attention to:

• Proven track record. Request information about their experience with similar projects. Check CVs and case studies.
• Domain experience. Specialists with experience in multiple sectors—e-commerce, healthcare, finance, education, etc.—bring broader perspectives and innovative approaches.
• Client feedback. Independent review platforms can reveal more about the company than their official website or even portfolio.
• Communication style. It’s possible to clarify the approach to communication with clients during the introductory calls. Pay attention to how open and specific the company is regarding your inquiries.
• Cooperation options. It goes for both engagement models and service diversity. Companies that offer flexibility in their QA services are better adapted for long-term cooperation and accommodating your changing needs.
• Knowledge transfer. It’s essential to ensure that the QA partner builds your team’s internal capabilities rather than creates dependency. Look for partners who provide detailed explanations, can take on training, and contribute to the project’s resources.

These are the core considerations, but feel free to add more points if something important to you is missing from this list.

The Future of Accessibility Testing

We started this article by talking about the early days of accessibility testing. And it would be logical to conclude it looking ahead. Accessibility testing continues to evolve—just like software does. The emerging trends in technology are going to influence accessibility assessment as well. We might soon expect:

• AI-driven predictive testing identifies potential issues earlier in the design process before development begins.
• Real-time accessibility monitoring for continuous assessment rather than point-in-time testing.
• Standardized metrics and benchmarking to compare accessibility performance against industry peers and track improvement over time.
• Integrated development tools that check for accessibility issues during coding, similar to how linters check for code quality.

Make sure you have the right people on your team to keep up with both regulations and tech trends. For in a world where digital experiences increasingly define brand relationships, ensuring those experiences work for everyone isn’t just the right thing to do—it’s the smart business decision.