As the demand for accessible digital experiences grows, so does the need for effective accessibility testing. Ensuring websites and applications meet accessibility standards is no longer just a legal requirement—it’s a commitment to inclusivity and usability for all users, including those with disabilities. Accessibility testing can be carried out through both manual and automated approaches, each with its own unique benefits and limitations. Let’s explore what each method entails, along with their pros and cons.
What is Manual Accessibility Testing?
Manual accessibility testing involves a person, often an accessibility specialist or tester, interacting directly with a website or application to assess its usability for people with disabilities. Testers use assistive technologies, such as screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, and voice recognition software, to simulate real-world interactions and evaluate whether the digital experience is accessible and usable.
Pros of Manual Accessibility Testing
- Realistic User Experience: Manual testing provides a firsthand look at how users with disabilities experience the site. Testers can detect usability issues that automated tests miss, such as confusing navigation, unclear focus indicators, or issues with custom elements.
- Evaluation of Non-Code Aspects: Manual testing allows the evaluation of elements like readability, logical content structure, color contrast effectiveness in context, and overall user journey, which are difficult to capture in automated tests.
- Ideal for Complex Interactions: Complex, dynamic elements, such as interactive forms, multimedia content, and modals, benefit from manual testing, as these interactions often require human judgment to determine if they are truly accessible.
Cons of Manual Accessibility Testing
- Time-Consuming: Manual testing can be labor-intensive and time-consuming, especially for large websites with many interactive elements. Each page and component needs to be evaluated individually.
- Higher Resource Requirements: Conducting manual testing requires skilled testers trained in accessibility standards and tools, making it more resource-intensive.
- Potential for Inconsistency: Because manual testing relies on human interpretation, different testers might evaluate elements differently. Documenting detailed testing procedures can help, but inconsistency is still a potential drawback.
What is Automated Accessibility Testing?
Automated accessibility testing uses software tools and scripts to evaluate websites for accessibility issues based on predefined standards, such as WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). These tools scan code to identify common accessibility barriers, like missing alt text, improper heading structures, or lack of keyboard accessibility.
Pros of Automated Accessibility Testing
- Speed and Efficiency: Automated tools can quickly scan large websites or applications, making them a time-efficient solution for detecting high-level accessibility issues across multiple pages or components.
- Ideal for Routine Testing: Automated testing is well-suited for frequent testing throughout the development process, enabling early detection of issues and ensuring accessibility compliance over time.
- Objective and Consistent: Automated testing tools follow standardized rules, providing consistent results without human bias. This consistency is valuable for detecting straightforward code-level issues.
Cons of Automated Accessibility Testing
- Limited Scope: Automated tests can only detect about 30% of accessibility issues, as they primarily focus on technical compliance rather than usability. They cannot assess subjective factors like logical reading order, contextual clarity, or user experience quality.
- Inability to Simulate Real-World Scenarios: Automated tools lack the ability to simulate actual user interactions with assistive technologies. They may detect code issues but can miss usability barriers that affect real users.
- False Positives and Negatives: Automated tools may flag issues that aren’t real barriers or miss issues that are, requiring human review to verify findings and ensure accuracy.
When to Use Manual vs. Automated Accessibility Testing
Both manual and automated testing play crucial roles in ensuring accessibility. Automated testing is best suited for early-stage development, continuous integration (CI), and routine compliance checks, helping developers catch and fix code-level issues early. Manual testing, however, is essential for evaluating usability and ensuring that complex interactions are accessible, making it an ideal final review before launch.
Conclusion: Achieving Accessibility Through a Blended Approach
The most effective accessibility strategy combines the strengths of both manual and automated testing. Automated tools provide a solid foundation by detecting code-related issues efficiently, while manual testing ensures that the user experience is accessible and intuitive for real users with disabilities. By leveraging both methods, development teams can create digital experiences that are not only compliant but genuinely inclusive, improving usability and accessibility for everyone.
Want to try out automated testing? Try our free Accessibility PageScan to scan one page of your website.
