Accessibility Reviews

Accessibility issues can appear in many parts of a website or application.

Some are visual, such as insufficient colour contrast or text that becomes difficult to read when enlarged. Others relate to structure, interaction or the way assistive technologies interpret the interface.

Depending on the scope, we may review areas such as:

• keyboard navigation
• colour contrast
• heading structure
• link and button labels
• forms and validation
• alternative text for images
• focus states
• navigation and menus
• page structure and landmarks
• video and multimedia
• tables
• document links
• responsive behaviour
• screen reader compatibility
• interaction patterns

We also consider the context in which these issues appear. A technically accessible component may still create difficulty if the surrounding content, instructions or journey are unclear.

This is where accessibility overlaps with user experience design and broader usability. The aim is to understand whether people can successfully use the experience, not simply whether individual elements pass a technical check.

Where appropriate, we assess the experience against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

WCAG provides a recognised framework for digital accessibility across areas such as perception, navigation, interaction and compatibility with assistive technologies.

Automated tools can help identify certain issues, but they do not provide a complete accessibility assessment. Many important problems require manual review and an understanding of how people actually interact with the interface.

Our review can combine:

• automated accessibility testing
• manual inspection
• keyboard-only testing
• screen reader checks
• review of content structure
• assessment of interactive components
• responsive and zoom testing
• review of common user journeys

The depth of assessment depends on what the organisation needs.

Some projects require a focused review to identify the most significant barriers. Others may need a more detailed assessment to support accessibility targets, procurement requirements or a broader program of improvement.

Accessibility reviews can uncover a wide range of findings, from minor improvements to barriers that prevent users from completing important tasks.

We organise findings so teams can understand which issues require the most attention.

Prioritisation may consider:

• severity of the barrier
• number of users likely to be affected
• importance of the affected journey
• frequency of the issue across the site
• effort required to resolve it
• whether the issue sits in content, design or development
• whether a common component is causing the problem across multiple pages

This is particularly useful for larger websites where addressing every issue at once may not be practical.

Recommendations are written so the teams responsible for content, design and development can understand the problem and what needs to change.

Where useful, accessibility findings can also feed into user testing, particularly when an organisation wants to understand how specific interactions perform with people who use assistive technology or have different accessibility needs.

An accessibility review is often most valuable when the findings influence what happens next.

For an existing website, the review can become the basis for prioritised accessibility remediation, allowing issues to be addressed progressively according to their impact.

For a redevelopment, the findings can help establish accessibility requirements before new components and templates are designed and developed.

Accessibility can then be considered throughout:

• information architecture
• wireframing
• UI design
• content creation
• component development
• quality assurance
• user testing

This is generally more effective than trying to address accessibility at the end of a project.

For organisations managing websites over the long term, the review can also highlight where internal processes need to change. Content editors, designers and developers may all have a role in maintaining accessibility as new content and functionality are introduced.

The findings provide a practical starting point for improving the current experience and reducing the likelihood that the same accessibility issues are repeated in future work.