10 Insights You Should Know Before Starting with Automated Accessibility Testing

Digital accessibility has always been surrounded by many struggles. Some companies couldn’t get it right. And some overlooked it or didn’t care. That’s how we ended up with rising accessibility related lawsuits, bumped up fines for non-compliance, and organizations losing billions of dollars. While people battle with basic accessibility issues, most firms fail to resolve them. And so, the state of web accessibility is pretty much the same as it was a decade ago.

But things are about to change. They need to. The EU introduced the most advanced accessibility regulations to date. And the US is expecting a huge overhaul to the Americans with Disabilities Act. In light of this, companies are actively looking for solutions that improve their accessibility. So far, the most popular option is automated software testing services.

Can Accessibility Testing Be Automated?

For accessibility, automated testing offers accuracy and efficiency. It also lets you save time so the team can focus on more complex checks. These perks alone entice companies to rely on automation as the perfect way out of accessibility issues. But is it really the ideal solution?

The thing about automated accessibility testing is that it can only assess technical aspects. It’s not a drawback. It’s simply how it works. For example, here are some things it can handle well:

• Missing alt text on images, form labels, or incorrectly associated labels.
• Incorrect use of ARIA roles or attributes.
• Insufficient color contrast.
• Improper heading structure (e.g., skipping heading levels).
• Keyboard focus issues (like focusable elements not being reachable).
• Redundant or empty links, buttons, or elements.

So, automated accessibility testing tools will flag basic errors. But they won’t tell you whether:

• Alt text is meaningful or just present.
• Link or button text makes sense out of context.
• A keyboard-only user can navigate the interface easily.
• The screen reader experience makes sense (like reading order or announcements).
• Animations, modals, or pop-ups are accessible and dismissible.
• Error messages are clear, timely, and reachable by assistive tech.

In short, accessibility automation testing is possible and very useful. Yet, it will only help reach level A and partial level AA compliance. Does that mean you should cross automated accessibility testing services off your solutions list? Not at all. You just need to supplement them with the skills of human experts.

What Are the Pros & Cons of Automated Web Accessibility Testing?

Now that we’re on the same page regarding the question of “What is automated accessibility testing?”, let’s figure out its exact benefits for your business.

Pros of Using Automated Web Accessibility Testing Tools

To be as objective as possible with the pros and cons, we’ve asked our QA engineers to share their insights. They worked on projects from different industries and with ranging budgets. So, there won’t be hidden merits and vices.

• Better speed and scalability. Test automation services are ideal for large projects or teams needing to scan hundreds of components quickly. They enable broad coverage with minimal effort.
• Cost-effective early detection. Automation helps catch issues before they become taxing to fix in later stages. It’s especially valuable for lean teams with limited QA bandwidth.
• Easy integration into dev workflows. Automated tests can be added to code editors, GitHub pipelines, or CI/CD tools, allowing for proactive checks during development.
• Improved code quality. Automation acts as a teaching tool. It points out problems in code, helping developers learn accessibility best practices.
• Reduced QA burden. It also lightens the load for manual engineers by handling repetitive, rule-based checks.
• Objectivity and traceability. Test results are consistent, trackable, and exportable. This is useful for audits, documentation, and proving due diligence.
• Assistance for non-specialists. Automation testing services let teams without accessibility expertise begin testing without waiting for a specialist. In other words, you can at least have a decent accessibility base.

Another great thing about automation tools for accessibility testing, is that they often rely on established guidelines. So, they provide standardized reports that objectively assess your compliance.

Cons of Using Automated Accessibility Testing

The biggest flaw of automated accessibility testing tools is that they’re not people. There’s no experience, creativity, or intuition involved. And here’s how this drawback manifests itself.

• Limited scope. Automation only catches surface-level, code-based issues. In other words, it can cover 50% of accessibility errors maximum.
• Lack of user perspective. Tools often miss contextual issues, usability problems, and WCAG success criteria that require subjective evaluation.
• Inability to assess complex interactions. Automated testing struggles with advanced accessibility aspects such as user interactions, dynamic content updates, and overall user flows.
• Potential for over-reliance. Organizations might mistakenly believe that passing automated tests equates to full accessibility. That can lead to neglecting manual testing and user feedback.
• False positives/negatives. Some automated tools can flag issues that aren’t genuine accessibility barriers. Conversely, they may fail to identify real problems. So, in the end, you’ll still need manual checks.
• Interpretation of results required. Automated reports often revolve around technical jargon. These documents require accessibility expertise to interpret and prioritize findings.
• Initial investment and maintenance costs. Automated accessibility testing tools need infrastructure and maintenance. Setting up, updating, and supporting them calls for an initial investment.

There’s something else you should keep in mind. Automation of web accessibility testing’s effectiveness fully depends on the skills of the specialist organizing it. Whether you have a single person or a team responsible for setting up automation, you should make sure they have enough experience. What’s more, they need to be proficient in niche, platform, and tool particularities. Here’s why.

What Are the Particularities of iOS Automated Accessibility Testing?

Individual industries may have distinct regulations applicable to them (e.g., healthcare vs gaming). The same can be said about app types (e.g., automated accessibility testing for mobile apps vs web apps). And the platforms you work with (e.g., iOS vs Android) can shift your process dramatically. Even the tools you use will require particular approaches to make them function.

To better understand how such nuances can impact your testing, we’ll review a few cases in the next two sections. The first one will compare automated accessibility testing on iOS vs Android. And the other one will focus on using Selenium — a wildly popular automation tool.

iOS Automated Accessibility Testing

Apple places strong restrictions on how much access third-party tools have to internal app structures. This limits how thoroughly automation can scan for accessibility issues.

iOS has fewer open-source or third-party accessibility testing frameworks. Apple provides XCUITest for UI automation, but accessibility testing often requires extensions or custom scripting.

With fewer devices and a controlled OS rollout, accessibility behavior is more predictable across Apple devices. So, automated tests are more consistent in their results.

iOS apps rely on Apple’s accessibility APIs, such as UIAccessibility. These need to be implemented correctly for automation tools to pick up meaningful data.

Android Automated Accessibility Testing

Android gives tools greater visibility into how the app is structured. You can identify both surface-level issues and some deeper structural problems.

There are more open-source testing tools for Android. So, it’s easier and cheaper to get started with automated checks.

Because Android runs across a wide range of devices and OS versions, automated tests might behave differently across devices. This means more tests for your team.

Many Android apps use custom elements that don’t always tell screen readers what they are or how they should work. If the developers don’t add accessibility info, automated tools might miss problems or not know how to test them at all.

As you can see, even though the only difference is the OS, there are plenty of points that shift your approach to automated accessibility testing.

How Does Accessibility Automation Testing with Selenium Work?

In automated accessibility testing, Selenium is used to automate browser interactions. It basically replaces human activities. You don’t need to open pages, press buttons, or fill out forms — Selenium does it for you. Meanwhile, another tool runs alongside it and flags any issues. Here’s a simple explanation of the process.

#1 You set up a test that tells Selenium what part of the website to visit and how to interact with it.

#2 While Selenium is “using” the website, an accessibility checker works in the background. It looks at the page and asks things like:

• Are images missing descriptions?
• Can someone use this form with just a keyboard?
• Is the color contrast good enough to read?
• Can a screen reader understand what’s on the page?

#3 The tool then generates a report. It highlights areas that might cause problems for people with disabilities.

#4 This lets designers or developers go back and make changes to improve accessibility.

As you can see, Selenium needs to be combined with another tool. So, your team needs to have skills to operate both. If you’re using Cypress, you might run into troubles when working with complex interactions, which affect how you test certain accessibility flows. So, you need to know how to bypass these limitations.

Long story short, all tools have their distinct capabilities, processes, and dependencies. That’s why you need to pick wisely. And, of course, you ought to make sure you have people on your team with relevant knowledge.

What Are the Best Tools for Automated Accessibility Testing?

With the above in mind, let’s make your tool selection easier. Over the years, our team has figured out what aspects we should prioritize when choosing tools for any software testing services.

1. What Kind of Software Are You Testing?

• For desktop apps, use tools that can interact with native UI elements, not just HTML.
• For mobile apps, look for support for gestures, screen reader behaviors, and mobile-specific guidelines.
• For cross-platform apps, prioritize consistency. Your tool should provide reliable results across platforms.

2. What Needs to Be Tested?

• If your app has static views, a simple scan may be enough.
• If it includes dynamic interactions, choose tools that support user-flow testing.
• For apps that change with user input, you’ll need automation-friendly tools that can test after each change happens.

3. Who Will Use the Tool?

• If it’s mainly for developers, it should be lightweight, fast, and easy to run during development.
• If it’s for QA engineers, it should support scripting and integrate with existing test suites.
• If it’s for accessibility specialists, it should offer detailed results with clear guidance based on accessibility standards.

4. How Will Results Be Used & Shared?

• For quick fixes, look for tools that highlight issues clearly and explain how to resolve them.
• For compliance or reporting, choose tools that generate structured reports and track results over time.
• If your team works across roles, find tools that support shared visibility, such as via dashboards or exportable summaries.

5. What’s Your Long-Term Strategy?

• For ongoing testing, choose tools that can run automatically with every release and keep up with UI changes.
• For audits or occasional checks, prioritize depth and support for manual inspection.
• If your app is frequently updated, make sure the tool can handle evolving interfaces with minimal rework.

6. How Much Customization Do You Need?

• If your app has custom UI components, choose a tool that lets you define your own rules or testing logic.
• If your team follows internal accessibility standards, make sure the tool can adjust to those instead of only using default ones.

7. How Easily Can the Tool Integrate into Your Workflow?

• Look for tools that can run as part of automated testing pipelines so accessibility checks happen automatically.
• If your team uses code reviews or version control, choose tools that can flag issues during those steps.

Lastly, consider how easy it is for your team to work with the automated accessibility testing tool. Think about its learning curve, user-friendliness, and available support.

We won’t tell you what tools to use or which we consider “the best”. Because you should choose them based on your project’ needs and team skills, not rankings. But we’ll highlight a few options which we’ve found very helpful and can serve as references for what you could expect from a tool.

axe DevTools is a browser extension that identifies accessibility defects based on WCAG standards. It’s user-friendly and provides detailed explanations of the issues found and how to fix them. It can be used for quick checks during development or more in-depth audits.

Lighthouse is an open-source tool that audits various aspects of web page quality. It provides a score and actionable recommendations for improving accessibility. It can be run directly in the browser or as a Node command-line tool, making it suitable for integration into CI/CD pipelines.

WAVE is a suite of accessibility evaluation tools. It’s available as a browser extension and as an online tool where you can enter a URL. WAVE provides visual feedback on a webpage, highlighting accessibility issues and ARIA attributes directly on the page.

Accessibility Insights is a browser extension and a Windows desktop app. It includes automated checks, visualizations of tab stops, and guided manual testing features. This tool is superb for beginners, providing strong visual feedback.

Pa11y is an open-source tool offering customizable reports and supporting headless testing. It can be integrated into development workflows and testing frameworks. Pa11y’s command-line interface makes it well-suited for running accessibility tests in CI environments.

What Is the Best Accessibility Testing Automation Framework?

While tools dictate what you do, frameworks determine how you do it. They’re like a manual for your tools to go off of. They include:

• Rules for writing and organizing tests.
• APIs and libraries that let you interact with the UI and perform accessibility checks.
• Standards that determine what constitutes an accessibility violation.
• Reporting mechanisms that present the results of the accessibility tests.

Briefly, accessibility testing automation frameworks tell your tools what to do, and the tools do it. And so, you need to choose them just as carefully.

Consider the tech stack the framework relies on and the level of experience of your team. For crews new to automation, frameworks with good documentation and community support should do well. And for more experienced specialists, you want to go with frameworks that give full control over test flows, reporting, and error handling.

Here are a few options to look into.

If you’re testing a web app with lots of user interaction, use Cypress. It handles dynamic content smoothly and gives fast feedback during development.

Pair it with:

• axe-core (via cypress-axe to run accessibility checks during test flows).
• Pa11y (for separate CLI-based checks if you want reporting outside of Cypress).

If you’re testing a web app across multiple browsers or need flexibility, use Selenium. It’s compatible with all major browsers and integrates with most test languages.

Pair it with:

• axe-core (can be embedded into Selenium tests in Java, Python, etc.)
• Tenon API (for teams needing more design-level or usability rule coverage).

If you’re testing a mobile app, use Appium. It automates real devices and supports accessibility-focused testing.

Pair it with:

• Google Accessibility Scanner (for Android).
• Accessibility Inspector (for iOS).
• These can be triggered manually or used alongside Appium test flows.

If you want powerful browser testing with modern tooling, use Playwright. It supports Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit and works well for modern, interactive apps.

Pair it with:

• axe-core/Playwright integration (for built-in accessibility assertions).
• HTML_CodeSniffer (for secondary checks if you need specific rule customization).

If your team uses Java and wants structure for large test suites, use JUnit or TestNG. They’re well-suited for large enterprise environments with detailed test reporting.

Pair them with:

• axe-core for Java (to embed checks directly in your test scripts).
• Google Accessibility Test Framework (when testing Android UIs in parallel with Java logic).

Now that you’re aware of all the nuances involved in automated web accessibility testing services, you’re probably wondering whether it would be easier to just stick with manual checks. Let’s explore this idea.

Manual vs Automated Accessibility Testing: Which Is Better?

To this day, there’s a battle of the testing approaches. Some think automation is superior because of its speed, accuracy, and scalability. Others are convinced that manual checks are greater because of their flexibility, user-centricity, and depth. Both camps are missing the point.

The two methods shouldn’t compete but balance each other out. Manual QA can never be as fast as automation. And automation can never leverage human experience to find obscure issues or think like a person. So, what do you do? You combine them to get the most for your project.

Automation takes care of straightforward tasks, (like the ones in this website accessibility testing checklist) such as:

• Checking color contrast ratios.
• Detecting ARIA misuse.
• Running accessibility checks during CI.

And manual QA handles advanced aspects, like:

• Testing with real assistive technologies.
• Judging visual layout and readability.
• Exploring edge cases or complex interactions.

Look at it this way. Automated and manual accessibility testing have their unique pros. So why would you settle for only half of them by using just one of the methods? The only downside to mixing manual and automated tests is that you need lots of stuff to support them.

Infrastructure:

• Testing environments.
• Automation frameworks and tools.
• Version control and CI\\CD systems.
• Assistive tech to test with.
• Access to a variety of devices, platforms, and browsers.
• Tools for documenting and reporting.

Process:

• Scheduled automated checks.
• Clear triage workflow for addressing and tracking automated test results.
• Regular updates to tests as UI or component logic evolves.
• Dedicated time for exploratory testing.
• Structured but flexible test plans that include user flows, edge cases, and real-world interactions.
• Feedback loop with designers and developers to interpret findings and prioritize fixes.

Skills:

• Engineers or developers who can write and maintain automation scripts.
• Knowledge of accessibility APIs and how to integrate accessibility tools with the existing tech stack.
• Familiarity with interpreting tool outputs.
• QA specialists with accessibility knowledge.
• Ability to think from a user’s perspective (not just a compliance mindset).

Yes, tons of effort need to go into either manual or automated testing. And it doubles when you use both of them. Add to that the accessibility testing checklist you need to cover and it might just seem like too much. But there are ways to make this easier.

What Are Automated Accessibility Testing Services?

You can always turn to QA outsourcing services for help with any aspect of accessibility testing.

• Automated accessibility audits give teams a quick baseline of where their app stands. They help prioritize fixes without needing deep accessibility expertise right away.
• Integration of accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines embeds checks into your build or deployment pipeline.
• Custom rule development for automation tools makes automated checks smarter and more relevant to your actual app.
• Scheduled or continuous accessibility monitoring helps teams track progress over time, catch regressions, and stay on top of accessibility.
• Automation framework setup for accessibility testing allows your tests to run smoothly alongside functional tests.
• Automated reporting and dashboards turn raw test data into insights, showing trends, severity, and areas with the most issues.
• Tool selection and setup consulting help you avoid wasted time and effort by choosing tools that integrate well with your workflow, support your tech stack, and match your testing goals.

A dedicated QA team can also help you build a custom automation strategy and even take care of the entire process on their own. Basically, you get immediate access to specialists with dozens of projects under their belts who can handle any task you want them to.

When Should You Outsource Accessibility Testing Automation?

Finally, we understand that outsourcing isn’t for everyone. You might not even be looking into it right now. But you should know when you might need such services. After all, outsourcing QA is all about getting quality assistance. So, don’t wait for things to go wrong to ask for it. Strive to plan ahead and figure out whether external expertise is in your project’s best interest.

• If your team lacks accessibility automation expertise, outsourcing gives you access to specialists. They can set up tools, interpret results, and ensure standards are applied correctly.
• If you don’t have time to build an in-house solution, outsourcing speeds up testing. You’ll get ready-made workflows and experts who can jump in without a ramp-up period.
• If you need an unbiased, third-party assessment, outsourcing delivers objective reports. These are valuable for compliance, client trust, or internal quality checks.
• If your project has specific technical or compliance requirements, outsourcing brings in experience from similar projects. This means you don’t have to figure everything out from scratch.
• If you want to support your internal team without growing headcount, outsourcing gives you flexible access to skilled engineers. They can handle overflow or fill skill gaps temporarily.
• If accessibility is a critical requirement and non-compliance risks are high, outsourcing helps mitigate risks. Expert assessments reduce the chance of legal or reputational consequences.
• If your budget is limited but you need reliable results, outsourcing can be very cost-effective. It lets you cover essential accessibility checks without investing in long-term hiring, training, or infrastructure.

Our team has worked on many projects. And we know first hand that lots of companies turn to outsourcing a tad too late. Typically they do it when they run into an issue. That’s why we recommend a little bit of preplanning. External experts can be superb quality drivers. So, don’t trade significant upgrades to your product for fixes.

To Sum Up

These 10 insights about automated accessibility testing were tested and proven by our team’s decade of experience. There’s no whimsy. Just knowledge and skill. We hope this article helped you figure out how to approach automation. And if you need more information or help with implementation — we’re always here.

Want your automation set up by experts?

Contact us