Are you from the public sector?
Are you from the public sector?
Test the complete functionality of AccessGO risk-free for 7 days free of charge.
Testing an accessible website is crucial to ensuring accessibility and usability for all visitors. Systematic evaluations help to identify, assess, and systematically eliminate existing barriers. This page provides you with a practical overview of the most important methods, tools, and testing procedures for evaluating accessibility.
You will learn which workflows and evaluation systems have proven effective, how automated and manual testing procedures complement each other, and what to keep in mind during practical implementation. Furthermore, you will receive information regarding regulatory requirements and learn how sustainable testing processes contribute to the continuous improvement of accessibility.
An accessibility test for websites follows a clear methodology to comprehensively evaluate accessibility. The process often begins with preliminary checks, during which basic aspects such as color contrasts or alternative texts are reviewed. In the next step, automated checks are used, which cover a large number of technical requirements quickly using specialized tools. Complementing this, manual tests are indispensable because they reflect the actual usability for people with various limitations, evaluating aspects such as keyboard navigability or screen reader compatibility.
Careful documentation of all test results in test reports is essential to traceably record the current state of accessibility and enable targeted improvements. Unlike mere quick checks, which usually only provide a rough overview, a systematic process delivers a sound foundation for the sustainable optimization of a website.
| Test step | Description and purpose |
|---|---|
| Preliminary check | Quick review of basic criteria, such as contrasts and alternative texts |
| Automated test | Use of tools to analyze technical accessibility requirements |
| Manual test | Testing of actual usability and user experience, e.g., with keyboard or screen reader |
| Test protocol & documentation | Systematic recording of results to derive targeted measures |
Accessibility tests aim to make websites accessible and usable for as many people as possible. The focus is on both user-centricity and compliance with legal requirements. An effective test goes beyond mere technical evaluation and aligns itself with the actual needs and usage scenarios of different groups of people.
The fundamental principles of accessibility—perceptibility, operability, understandability, and robustness—form the framework for evaluation. Crucially, the user’s perspective must always be the focal point: tests should identify real barriers that affect people with disabilities in everyday life. Purely technical checks fall short if they disregard practical usability and suitability for everyday use.
7 days unrestricted access. No payment details required.
Various systems and models exist for evaluating the accessibility of a website. Testing is frequently based on the WCAG conformance levels (A, AA, AAA) or on national testing procedures such as the BITV test. These systems provide a structured framework to measure the fulfillment of individual success criteria and to achieve comparable results.
In addition to these standardized evaluation systems, there are different models for presenting results, such as assessment by degree of fulfillment (e.g., percentage fulfillment of requirements) or by error severity classes (e.g., critical, significant, minor). Partial and overall results are equally relevant here: while partial results highlight vulnerabilities in specific areas, the overall result provides an overview of the current state of accessibility.
| Rating system | Features and areas of application |
|---|---|
| WCAG conformance levels | Three levels (A, AA, AAA); internationally recognized; basis for many testing procedures |
| BITV test | German testing procedure; detailed evaluation according to fixed test steps |
| Degree of fulfillment | Results as a percentage; shows the proportion of met requirements |
| Error classes | Categorization according to the severity of barriers (critical, significant, minor) |
Automated and manual testing procedures follow different approaches when checking the accessibility of a website. Automated tools capture a variety of technical criteria in a short amount of time and are particularly well-suited for initial assessments as well as recurring routine checks. However, they show limitations when it comes to evaluating complex usage situations or individual user experiences.
Manual tests complement automated procedures by evaluating actual operability and understandability from the user’s perspective. They are indispensable for assessing content that cannot be captured automatically, such as when using screen readers or checking reading logic. A meaningful combination of both methods ensures a comprehensive and practical evaluation of accessibility.
| Test method | Strengths and limitations |
|---|---|
| Automated test | Fast analysis of many technical criteria, ideal for routine checks; limited detection of complex barriers |
| Manual test | Detailed evaluation from the user’s perspective, identifies individual barriers; time-consuming, dependent on expertise |
| Combination | Combines efficiency and depth, covers technical and user-related aspects; requires careful planning |
The practical execution of an accessibility test takes place in several clearly defined steps. It begins with careful preparation, which includes selecting suitable test pages, assembling the evaluation team, and defining the criteria to be tested. Involving testers with disabilities is particularly valuable in order to authentically incorporate real-world barriers and individual experiences.
During execution, automated and manual checks are systematically applied. The results are continuously documented to ensure a traceable testing process. In the follow-up phase, a structured evaluation of the findings takes place, specific improvement measures are derived, and a final summary is compiled in a test report. This creates a resilient foundation for the sustainable optimization of accessibility.
Schedule a free consultation and speak with one of our experts.
Various tools and resources are available for conducting an accessibility test. These include browser plugins, validation services, and screen readers, which cover different aspects of accessibility. The selection of the appropriate tool depends on the specific requirements of the test, the criteria to be evaluated, and the desired level of detail.
Each tool has its own strengths and limitations: while automated validators quickly uncover technical errors, screen readers provide valuable insights into the actual user experience. Combining multiple tools is therefore sensible in order to obtain the most comprehensive picture possible. When making a selection, factors such as usability, up-to-dateness, compatibility, and the coverage of relevant testing areas should be taken into account.
| Tool/Aid | Area of application and special features |
|---|---|
| Browser widgets (e.g., axe, WAVE) | Fast analysis of technical barriers directly in the browser; ideal for developers |
| Online validators (e.g., W3C Validator, Accessibility Checker) | Automated checking of source code and structure; cover many standards |
| Screen readers (e.g., NVDA, JAWS) | Simulate use by visually impaired or blind users; highlight usability issues |
| Keyboard tests | Check accessibility without a mouse; important for users with motor impairments |
Accessibility testing is subject to clearly defined regulatory requirements in Germany and the EU. For companies and public bodies, testing obligations arise from the Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG), the Accessible Information Technology Ordinance (BITV 2.0), as well as the internationally recognized standards of the WCAG. These regulations specify that digital offerings must be regularly tested and documented in order to prove compliance with accessibility requirements.
A central element is the obligation to provide proof: results and measures must be traceably documented in order to provide transparent information in the event of an audit or inquiries from users. It should be noted that these regulatory requirements are to be distinguished from certification procedures. While compliance with the BFSG, BITV 2.0, and WCAG is mandatory, certificates are generally voluntary and primarily serve public relations purposes.
Typical errors and challenges repeatedly arise when conducting accessibility tests. Frequently, automated tests are overestimated, while manual checks and the user perspective are given too little consideration. The selection of unsuitable test pages or the incomplete documentation of results also leads to inaccurate or uninformative test results.
Complex web applications place special demands on testing methodology. Dynamic content, interactive components, and individual customizations are often difficult to test automatically and require targeted manual checks. Furthermore, misunderstandings frequently arise during evaluation, such as when technical compliance is equated with actual usability. Careful planning, clear evaluation objectives, and the involvement of experienced testers help to avoid errors and increase the conclusiveness of the tests.
| Source of error/Challenge | Tip for avoidance |
|---|---|
| Overestimating automated tests | Combine with manual checks and user feedback |
| Insufficient test coverage | Select representative pages and functions |
| Lack of documentation | Seamless logging of all test results |
| Evaluation errors in complex applications | Targeted testing of dynamic and interactive elements |
7 days unrestricted access. No payment details required.
The professional evaluation of accessibility tests requires a structured analysis of all identified barriers. First, the individual findings are assessed and prioritized according to their severity and relevance for the users. It is important to prioritize critical hurdles that have a direct impact on usability, while less severe defects can be addressed in a second step. The identification of improvement needs is carried out in a targeted manner based on the documented results and is oriented toward clearly defined success criteria.
For the subsequent communication of results to stakeholders, a transparent and comprehensible presentation is recommended. In addition to an overview of the most important findings, it should contain specific action recommendations and prioritized action plans. This allows responsibilities to be clearly assigned and progress in the improvement process to be effectively managed.
An accessible website should be tested in all essential project phases – especially before launch, after major updates, and with every relaunch. Furthermore, a regular review is recommended, approximately once a year or in the event of relevant technical changes. Continuous monitoring can be used as a supplement, but it does not replace full accessibility tests.
The systematic verification of accessibility is an essential component of modern web development. Anyone wishing to test an accessible website should combine structured evaluation procedures, suitable tools, and the inclusion of real user perspectives to ensure accessibility and usability for all target groups.
Essential in this context are the continuous integration of tests into development and operational processes, the prioritization of measures based on severity, and the traceable documentation and communication of results. This is the only way to meet legal requirements and achieve sustainable improvements.
Check your homepage with the AccessGO quick check.
Identify risks and barriers according to WCAG standards.
When conducting accessibility tests, user groups with different types of disabilities should be taken into account in order to identify real-world usage barriers. Key profiles include people with visual impairments, hearing impairments, motor restrictions, as well as cognitive impairments.
The more diverse the test subjects, the more comprehensive the test results.
When conducting accessibility tests, user groups with different types of disabilities should be taken into account in order to identify real-world usage barriers. Key profiles include people with visual impairments, hearing impairments, motor restrictions, as well as cognitive impairments.
The more diverse the test subjects, the more comprehensive the test results.
Screen readers are a central assistive technology for testing the accessibility of websites for blind and visually impaired users. They demonstrate how content is read aloud and navigated, exposing typical barriers such as missing alternative texts or flawed structures.
However, screen reader checks do not capture all accessibility aspects, such as motor or cognitive impairments. Other assistive technologies, such as screen magnification software or alternative input devices, should also be taken into account in the testing process.
The documentation of accessibility tests should clearly specify the scope, the methods applied, and the conclusiveness of the results. For quick checks, a brief summary is often sufficient, for instance for an initial assessment or for internal reviews.
Quick checks provide a broad overview and are usually less detailed. They capture only selected evaluation criteria and offer limited traceability. A comprehensive accessibility test, on the other hand, transparently documents all testing steps, results, and measures.
