Markdown Editor

Accessibility Evaluation Report Template (WCAG-EM)

WCAG-EM evaluation report: scope, exploration, page sample, results for all WCAG 2.2 A and AA criteria, issues, conformance claim

Pruebas y calidadCompletaW3C WCAG-EM 1.0; WCAG 2.2accessibilityaudit

Cómo usar: Use it for a formal accessibility conformance evaluation of a website or app. Define scope and the conformance target, then explore and choose a representative sample before auditing. The main pitfall is relying on automated tools alone, which detect only a minority of failures.

Vista previa

Accessibility Evaluation Report: [Website or application name]

Accessibility conformance evaluation report. The method follows the five steps of the W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM 1.0), and results are reported against WCAG 2.2 level AA success criteria. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. This report records an evaluation; it is not legal advice on accessibility law.

Document control

FieldValue
Document ID[A11Y-SITE-2026-001]
Website / application[Name and base URL]
Version or release evaluated[Release 5.1 / content as of YYYY-MM-DD]
Evaluation commissioner[Organisation or team]
Evaluator(s)[@name, organisation]
Evaluation datesYYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD
Report version[0.1]
Status[Draft / Final / Re-test update]
Classification[Internal / Public]
Last updatedYYYY-MM-DD

Approvals

RoleNameDecisionDate
Lead evaluator[@name][Issued]YYYY-MM-DD
Peer reviewer[@name][Reviewed]YYYY-MM-DD
Product owner[@name][Accepted / Accepted with comments]YYYY-MM-DD
Accessibility lead[@name][Decision]YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

VersionDateAuthorChange summary
0.1YYYY-MM-DD[@name]Draft for peer review
1.0YYYY-MM-DD[@name]Example: Final report issued
1.1YYYY-MM-DD[@name]Example: Re-test of A11Y-003 and A11Y-007; both resolved

Contents

1. Executive summary

Example: The online banking portal was evaluated against WCAG 2.2 level AA between YYYY-MM-DD and YYYY-MM-DD using a sample of 18 pages and 3 complete processes. The portal does not yet conform: 11 of the 55 level A and AA success criteria fail on at least one sampled page.

The most serious barriers are:

  1. Keyboard users cannot complete a payment, because the account picker cannot be reached or operated without a mouse.
  2. Screen reader users are not told about form errors on the transfer form.
  3. Several buttons have text and icon contrast below the minimum, affecting users with low vision.
ResultCount of success criteria (A + AA)
Pass[36]
Fail[11]
Not present[8]
Cannot tell[0]

Fixing the 4 issues rated Critical or High in section 7 would remove the barriers to the core payment process.

2. Step 1: Evaluation scope

2.1 Scope of the website

ItemDefinition
Website in scope[https://bank.example.com and all pages under it, including logged-in areas]
Excluded[Third-party chat widget; PDF statements archive older than 2024 (justify)]
Third-party content[Payment confirmation iframe from provider: evaluated, issues reported as third-party]

2.2 Conformance target

ItemValue
WCAG versionWCAG 2.2
Conformance levelAA (includes all level A criteria)
Accessibility support baseline[Combinations listed in 5.2]
Additional requirements[EN 301 549 mapping / internal design system checks / none]

2.3 Evaluation type

[Basic / detailed / in-depth evaluation]. This evaluation is [detailed]: it reports results per success criterion and per page, with examples and remediation advice.

3. Step 2: Exploration of the website

3.1 Common web pages

[Home page, login, main navigation targets, contact, help, legal and accessibility statement pages.]

3.2 Essential functionality

IDFunctionalityWhy essential
EF-01Example: Log in with two-factor authenticationGate to all services
EF-02Example: Make a payment to a new payeeCore purpose of the service
EF-03Example: Download a statementLegal record for customers
[EF-nn][Functionality][Reason]

3.3 Variety of page types and states

[Forms, data tables, dashboards with charts, modal dialogs, error states, empty states, mobile layout at 320 CSS pixels wide, dark mode.]

3.4 Web technologies relied upon

[HTML, CSS, JavaScript (React), WAI-ARIA, SVG, PDF for statements.]

4. Step 3: Representative sample

4.1 Structured sample

IDPage or screenURL or pathReason selected
P-01Home page/Common page
P-02Login/loginCommon page; EF-01
P-03Two-factor code entry/login/verifyEF-01; time limit
P-04Account overview/accountsDashboard, data tables, charts
P-05Transaction history/accounts/123/transactionsLarge data table, filters
P-06New payment: payee details/payments/newEF-02 form
P-07New payment: review/payments/new/reviewEF-02; error prevention
P-08New payment: confirmation/payments/new/doneEF-02; status message
P-09Statements/statementsEF-03; PDF download
P-10Help centre article/help/cardsContent page
[P-nn][Page][Path][Reason]

4.2 Complete processes

IDProcessPages
CP-01Log inP-02, P-03, P-04
CP-02Pay a new payeeP-06, P-07, P-08
CP-03Download a statementP-09 plus downloaded PDF

4.3 Random sample

IDPagePathSelection method
R-01[Page][Path][Random selection from crawl of n URLs]
R-02[Page][Path][Method]

5. Step 4: Audit method and assistive technologies

5.1 Method

Each sampled page and process was checked against every level A and AA success criterion using: automated scanning with [tool and version]; manual inspection of code and behaviour; keyboard-only operation; zoom to 200% and 400%; reflow at 320 CSS pixels; text spacing override; and testing with the assistive technologies below.

5.2 Assistive technologies and browsers tested

Assistive technologyVersionBrowserOperating system
Example: NVDA[2025.x]Firefox [version]Windows 11
Example: JAWS[2025]Chrome [version]Windows 11
Example: VoiceOver[Built in]Safari [version]macOS [version]
Example: VoiceOver[Built in]SafariiOS [version]
Example: TalkBack[version]ChromeAndroid [version]
Example: Windows Magnifier, browser zoomBuilt inEdgeWindows 11
Example: Voice Control / Dragon[version]Safari / Chrome[OS]

5.3 Tools

ToolPurpose
[Automated checker, version]Detects a subset of failures across all sampled pages
[Contrast analyser]Text and non-text contrast
[Browser developer tools]Accessibility tree, computed names and roles
[Bookmarklets or extensions]Headings, landmarks, text spacing

6. Results by success criterion

Result values: Pass, Fail, Not present (no content to which the criterion applies), Cannot tell.

6.1 Principle 1: Perceivable

SCShort nameLevelResultFailing pagesIssues
1.1.1Non-text ContentAExample: FailP-04A11Y-004
1.2.1Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded)ANot present
1.2.2Captions (Prerecorded)AExample: Pass
1.2.3Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded)AExample: Pass
1.2.4Captions (Live)AANot present
1.2.5Audio Description (Prerecorded)AAExample: Pass
1.3.1Info and RelationshipsAExample: FailP-05, P-06A11Y-005
1.3.2Meaningful SequenceA[Result]
1.3.3Sensory CharacteristicsA[Result]
1.3.4OrientationAA[Result]
1.3.5Identify Input PurposeAAExample: FailP-06A11Y-008
1.4.1Use of ColorAExample: FailP-06A11Y-002
1.4.2Audio ControlANot present
1.4.3Contrast (Minimum)AAExample: FailP-01, P-04, P-06A11Y-003
1.4.4Resize TextAA[Result]
1.4.5Images of TextAA[Result]
1.4.10ReflowAA[Result]
1.4.11Non-text ContrastAAExample: FailP-06A11Y-003
1.4.12Text SpacingAA[Result]
1.4.13Content on Hover or FocusAA[Result]

6.2 Principle 2: Operable

SCShort nameLevelResultFailing pagesIssues
2.1.1KeyboardAExample: FailP-06A11Y-001
2.1.2No Keyboard TrapA[Result]
2.1.4Character Key ShortcutsANot present
2.2.1Timing AdjustableAExample: FailP-03A11Y-006
2.2.2Pause, Stop, HideA[Result]
2.3.1Three Flashes or Below ThresholdA[Result]
2.4.1Bypass BlocksA[Result]
2.4.2Page TitledA[Result]
2.4.3Focus OrderA[Result]
2.4.4Link Purpose (In Context)A[Result]
2.4.5Multiple WaysAA[Result]
2.4.6Headings and LabelsAA[Result]
2.4.7Focus VisibleAAExample: FailP-04, P-05A11Y-007
2.4.11Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)AA[Result]
2.5.1Pointer GesturesA[Result]
2.5.2Pointer CancellationA[Result]
2.5.3Label in NameA[Result]
2.5.4Motion ActuationANot present
2.5.7Dragging MovementsAA[Result]
2.5.8Target Size (Minimum)AA[Result]

6.3 Principle 3: Understandable

SCShort nameLevelResultFailing pagesIssues
3.1.1Language of PageA[Result]
3.1.2Language of PartsAA[Result]
3.2.1On FocusA[Result]
3.2.2On InputA[Result]
3.2.3Consistent NavigationAA[Result]
3.2.4Consistent IdentificationAA[Result]
3.2.6Consistent HelpA[Result]
3.3.1Error IdentificationAExample: FailP-06A11Y-002
3.3.2Labels or InstructionsA[Result]
3.3.3Error SuggestionAA[Result]
3.3.4Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data)AAExample: Pass
3.3.7Redundant EntryA[Result]
3.3.8Accessible Authentication (Minimum)AA[Result]

6.4 Principle 4: Robust

SCShort nameLevelResultFailing pagesIssues
4.1.2Name, Role, ValueAExample: FailP-06A11Y-001
4.1.3Status MessagesAA[Result]

7. Issues and remediation

7.1 Severity scale

SeverityMeaning
CriticalBlocks a user group from completing an essential function
HighMakes an essential function very difficult; workaround needs help from another person
MediumCauses difficulty or confusion; user can still complete the task
LowMinor inconvenience; best-practice improvement

7.2 Issue register

IDIssueSCPagesUsers affectedSeverityRemediationOwnerStatus
A11Y-001Example: Payee account picker is a custom div list that cannot be focused or operated with the keyboard and has no role or name2.1.1, 4.1.2P-06Keyboard, screen reader, voice control usersCriticalUse a native select or the design system combobox with listbox pattern; expose name and selected value[@web-lead][Open]
A11Y-002Example: Form errors shown only as red border; no text message, not announced3.3.1, 1.4.1P-06Screen reader, colour-blind usersHighAdd text error next to field, link with aria-describedby, move focus to error summary on submit[@web-lead][Open]
A11Y-003Example: Primary button text 3.1:1 and input borders 1.9:11.4.3, 1.4.11P-01, P-04, P-06Low vision usersHighUpdate design tokens: button text to at least 4.5:1; borders to at least 3:1[@design-system][Open]
A11Y-006Example: Two-factor code expires after 60 s with no warning or way to extend2.2.1P-03Users with cognitive or motor impairmentsHighExtend to 10 minutes or warn and allow extension[@identity-team][Open]
A11Y-007Example: Focus outline removed on table rows and filter chips2.4.7P-04, P-05Keyboard usersMediumRestore visible focus indicator from design system[@web-lead][Open]
A11Y-004Example: Balance chart has no text alternative1.1.1P-04Screen reader usersMediumProvide summary text and a data table toggle[@web-lead][Open]
A11Y-005Example: Table headers marked up as bold cells, not th1.3.1P-05Screen reader usersMediumUse th with scope[@web-lead][Open]
A11Y-008Example: Name and email fields lack autocomplete1.3.5P-06Users with cognitive or motor impairmentsLowAdd autocomplete tokens[@web-lead][Open]
[A11Y-nnn][Issue][SC][Pages][Users][Severity][Remediation][@owner][Status]

7.3 Best-practice observations

[Observations that do not fail WCAG 2.2 AA but would improve the experience, for example level AAA criteria or plain-language improvements.]

8. Step 5: Conformance statement

Example (does not conform): Based on this evaluation, [Website name] as of YYYY-MM-DD does not conform to WCAG 2.2 level AA. Failures were found for 11 success criteria, listed in section 6. [Organisation] plans to resolve the critical and high issues by YYYY-MM-DD.

Template for a claim when all criteria pass:

ElementValue
Date of claimYYYY-MM-DD
Guidelines and versionWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2, W3C Recommendation
Conformance level met[AA]
Scope (web pages covered)[Definition from section 2.1]
Technologies relied upon[HTML, CSS, JavaScript, WAI-ARIA]
Evaluation methodWCAG-EM 1.0, sample in section 4
Assistive technologies used[Section 5.2]

9. Re-test plan

ActivityScopeDateOwner
Re-test critical and high issuesA11Y-001, -002, -003, -006 on all affected pagesYYYY-MM-DD[@evaluator]
Re-test remaining issuesMedium and low issuesYYYY-MM-DD[@evaluator]
Regression checks in CIAutomated checks on all routes; fail build on new critical violationsContinuous[@web-lead]
Next full evaluationNew sample per WCAG-EMYYYY-MM-DD (or after major redesign)[@accessibility-lead]
IssueRe-test dateBuildResultNotes
A11Y-001YYYY-MM-DD[build][Resolved / Partly resolved / Not resolved][Notes]

10. References

Standard and licence note

Based on the W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0 for its five evaluation steps and on WCAG 2.2 for success criterion numbers and short names. W3C documents are copyright the World Wide Web Consortium and are cited under the W3C Document License (https://www.w3.org/copyright/document-license/); no normative text is reproduced here, so consult the W3C documents for the requirements. All other text is original and written for this collection. Template licence: MIT. This report format is not legal advice on accessibility law.

Plantillas relacionadas