Commissioning an accessibility audit

A genuine accessibility audit combines automated scanning with manual testing by a person, and results in a prioritised, specific list of issues rather than a single pass or fail score — anything calling itself an audit that skips the manual component, or that produces only a binary “compliant/non-compliant” verdict, is not doing what an audit is supposed to do.

Why an organisation commissions an accessibility audit in the first place

An accessibility audit exists to find where a site genuinely excludes people with disability from completing a task everyone else can complete — not to produce a document for its own sake. Framing it that way changes what “good” looks like: an organisation commissioning an audit is buying identified, specific barriers to fix, not a compliance artefact, and an inclusive result is one where the assessments actually change what gets built next rather than sitting in a report nobody actioned.

What a genuine audit should include

Component	What it involves
Automated scanning	Checking the portion of WCAG criteria software can reliably assess — contrast, missing attributes, structural markup
Manual keyboard testing	An auditor actually attempting to navigate and use the site with a keyboard alone
Manual screen reader testing	An auditor using actual screen reader software to experience key pages and workflows
Content and structure review	Human judgement on whether alt text, headings and error messages genuinely make sense, not just whether they exist
A prioritised findings report	Specific issues, their WCAG reference, and a severity ranking — not a single overall score
Remediation guidance	Practical direction on how to fix each finding, not just that it exists

Why “automated scan with a logo on it” is not an audit

A report generated purely by running an automated tool and formatting the output with a consultant’s branding checks only the portion of WCAG that software can assess — commonly estimated at roughly a third to a half of all success criteria — and represents that partial check as more comprehensive than it is. Ask any prospective auditor directly what proportion of the assessment is manual versus automated, and expect a substantive answer rather than a vague reassurance.

What good manual testing actually looks like

A competent auditor should be able to describe specifically how they tested keyboard operability (attempting to complete key user journeys — a purchase, an enquiry form — using only a keyboard) and how they tested with a screen reader (which software, and on which pages or workflows). Vague claims of “we test manually too” without specifics are themselves worth treating as a flag, similar to any other unverifiable supplier claim covered on red flags when hiring a web designer.

Why a single overall score misrepresents the finding

Accessibility issues vary enormously in severity — a missing alt attribute on one decorative image is a minor finding; a completely unusable checkout for keyboard users is a severe one. A single aggregate score or percentage collapses this variation into a number that obscures which issues actually matter, and is one of the reasons this site’s own accessibility tool is a graded questionnaire rather than a single pass/fail score, covered on what automated scanners can and cannot find. A genuine audit report should list findings individually, each with its own severity, rather than compressing everything into one figure.

What an audit reasonably costs, relative to a basic scan

A genuine manual-plus-automated audit costs meaningfully more than running a free or low-cost automated scanner tool, because it involves genuine human time — testing key workflows with a keyboard and a screen reader, and reviewing content judgement calls that software cannot make. Treat a very low quoted price for a comprehensive-sounding audit with the same scepticism covered on what should be in a website quote — ask specifically what’s included for that price before assuming it matches a fuller audit’s scope.

What an audit cannot promise, and why any supplier claiming otherwise is wrong

No audit, however thorough, can guarantee a business will never face an accessibility complaint, and no legitimate auditor should represent it that way. What a genuine audit provides is a materially reduced risk position, grounded in an actual, specific finding of issues and remediation — not a certificate or a guarantee.

What to do after receiving audit findings

Prioritise fixes by severity and by how commonly the affected page or workflow is used, rather than attempting everything at once, and revisit the highest-traffic pages first. What fixing an existing site’s accessibility issues actually involves, once findings are prioritised, is covered on remediating an existing site.

Independence, and why it’s worth asking who’s doing the assessing

An audit conducted by the same business that also wants to sell you the remediation work has an inherent, if manageable, conflict of interest in how many and how severe the findings are reported to be. This doesn’t automatically disqualify a supplier from offering both services, but it’s worth asking directly how they manage that conflict, and treating a report finding an unusually large number of issues from a supplier who then quotes generously to fix them all with the same scrutiny applied to any other sales-adjacent claim.

What a reasonable audit timeline looks like

A genuine manual-and-automated audit of an ordinary small business site — the kind of site this cluster is written for — typically takes from several days to a few weeks depending on the site’s size and complexity, not a same-day turnaround. A supplier offering a comprehensive-sounding audit report within hours of being engaged is very likely relying almost entirely on automated tooling, regardless of how the report itself is framed or branded.

How often an audit should be repeated

A one-off audit provides a snapshot at a point in time, and a site that continues to be edited and added to after the audit will accumulate new issues over time, covered on what accessibility means in practice. Repeating a lighter-touch audit periodically — annually, or after any significant redesign — is a more realistic way to maintain a genuine accessibility position than treating a single audit as a permanent achievement.

What to do next

Ask any prospective accessibility auditor to describe their manual testing process specifically — which pages, which assistive technology, which user journeys — before commissioning the work, and expect a prioritised findings report rather than a single score. What that report should lead to next is set out on remediating an existing site.

Where an audit fee sits against the rest of a project budget is covered on what drives the cost of a website.