The Hidden Risks of Relying Solely on Web Accessibility Checkers

It’s easy to see the appeal of web accessibility checkers.

You plug in a URL, watch the scan run in seconds, and get back a tidy report of all the accessibility issues detected on your page.

A few quick fixes later, you run another scan and the checker declares your page compliant.

Job well done. Or at least, that’s what some organizations mistakenly believe.

In reality, most web accessibility checkers(opens in a new tab) are just page-level testing tools. They scan a single URL, flag common issues like missing alt text or poor color contrast, and stop there. They don’t fix anything, and they can’t evaluate how real people using assistive technology actually experience your site.

That gap is where so many organizations run into trouble. They focus on fixing the issues highlighted in their scan, thinking that will make them compliant. Instead, it just means that plenty of high-impact accessibility barriers are slipping through the cracks, impacting user experiences and putting businesses at risk.

Below, we’ll explain what accessibility checkers do well, where they fall short, and how to build a complete accessibility strategy that truly protects your business.

What Web Accessibility Checkers Do Well

To be clear: Saying that web accessibility checkers are not a complete solution does not mean they don’t have a valuable role to play in digital accessibility. For example, checkers can help you:

• Find quick wins: They excel at catching the low-hanging fruit — common WCAG violations that can be fixed fast.

• Provide speed and visibility: They can give you real-time insight into the accessibility of a page, even if it’s not a complete view.

• Support QA workflows: Automated scans can help teams quickly test a page after making small design tweaks or updates, such as changing the color of buttons or links.

Used this way, web accessibility checkers act as an early warning system, helping teams monitor the accessibility of a page between more robust audits.

However, it’s important to remember these tools won’t detect every issue(opens in a new tab). A clean scan doesn’t mean your page is fully compliant; it just means the tool didn’t detect any of the violations it was programmed to find.

Gear shaft with the accessibility symbol in the middle over a stylized web browser. Various icons surround the gear shift.

The Limitations of Web Accessibility Checkers

In addition to missing many accessibility issues, most checkers don’t actually fix anything. They tell you what’s wrong, but not how to resolve it — leaving your team to interpret the results, make code changes, and run another scan to see if the fixes worked.

That cycle repeats with every site update or design change, turning what looks like a quick check into an ongoing, manual process that can eat up valuable developer time.

For that reason, many organizations turn to automated accessibility tools(opens in a new tab) that provide the same testing capabilities as checkers, backed by automated fixes that can resolve some of the issues identified in real time.

However, it’s important to recognize that the same limitations that apply to checkers also apply to these automated tools. Even the best automated testing tools can only detect about two-thirds of common accessibility issues, and they also can’t fix all of the issues they identify.

Automation can’t reliably assess:

• Reading order and context: Automated tools can detect missing tags or headings, but they can’t tell if the page’s content is presented in a logical order or if the meaning makes sense when read aloud.

• Keyboard navigation and focus: They can’t test how easily someone can move through a page using only a keyboard — whether buttons, links, or forms can be reached and used without a mouse.

• Screen reader experiences: Automation can’t hear what a screen reader user actually hears or judge whether the spoken information makes sense and works properly.

• Cognitive and visual usability: These tools can’t tell if a layout is confusing, if instructions are unclear, or if too much information makes it hard for people to focus or complete tasks.

When “Passing the Test” Still Leaves You Exposed

A clean accessibility report feels like peace of mind — but when that “pass” is based only on automation, it can create serious compliance risk.

Automated accessibility tools, whether they simply flag issues or promise to fix them, can only detect a portion of the problems that real users encounter. They often miss the same barriers that drive litigation: unlabeled buttons, inaccessible forms, keyboard traps, and broken navigation. That’s why so many organizations are caught off guard when a demand letter arrives — they believed their site was protected because the tool they used said it was.

The data backs this up. In 2025, 38.5% of web accessibility lawsuits were filed against businesses that already had an accessibility tool in place. Most of those companies weren’t ignoring accessibility; they were relying on incomplete solutions that created a false sense of compliance. Tools that advertise “instant ADA compliance” or “a single line of code” are particularly risky because they imply total coverage where none exists.

Relying on automation alone doesn’t eliminate your legal exposure — it multiplies it, because it hides the gaps you can’t see.

Automated accessibility tools are an essential part of any mature accessibility program. But if they’re the only thing you rely on, they’ll inevitably leave you with two things: (1) gaps in your testing and (2) a false sense of security in your site’s compliance. The strongest approach combines automation with human expertise to ensure your site is truly accessible and compliant.

Man in a red shirt and tie holding a tablet next to a stylized web browser with a magnifying glass over the accessibility symbol.

The Smarter Approach: Hybrid Accessibility Strategy

The most effective organizations use checkers to maintain accessibility between manual audits, not as a replacement for them. In other words: automation keeps you aware, but not necessarily compliant.

Accessibility checkers aren’t the problem — relying on them alone is.

The most successful organizations use a hybrid approach that combines automation, human expertise, and user testing to achieve full coverage.

• Automated testing for fast detection: Use checkers for quick visibility and regression checks; pair with platform-level automation to remediate common issues across your site in real time.

• Expert audits to find complex issues: Certified accessibility professionals identify structural, design, and interaction problems that automation can’t reliably detect.

• Real-user testing with assistive tech: Assistive technology users, keyboard-only testers, and people with cognitive disabilities validate actual usability.

• Continuous monitoring and QA: Keep scanning, retesting, and documenting improvements release after release.

At AudioEye, we combine all four. Our platform uses intelligent automation to find and fix more issues than any other solution — backed by certified experts and assistive-technology users who verify your site’s real-world accessibility.

That’s how you move from “technically compliant” to truly accessible.