Accessibility Conformance Report for WCAG audit Example Website

Commissioned by
Example Organisation
Evaluated by
Focusring
Date
2025-01-15
WCAG version
WCAG 2.2
Conformance target
AA
Conformance result
50 of 55 criteria met

Executive summary

This is an example report for a WCAG accessibility audit of Example Website. It shows how findings are reported: every issue names the page it was found on, the success criterion it fails, its severity and a recommendation with the corrected markup, so a development team can pick it up without further explanation.

The evaluated pages contain six issues across the four WCAG principles. None of them block a task completely, but together they keep keyboard and screen reader users from using the contact form and the product search with confidence.


Results per principle

Conformance level: AA — 50 of 55 criteria met

Results per principle
WCAG PrincipleAAATotal
Perceivable8 / 911 / 1119 / 20
Operable13 / 145 / 618 / 20
Understandable6 / 76 / 612 / 13
Robust0 / 11 / 11 / 2
Total27 / 3123 / 2450 / 55

About this report

This report describes the results of an accessibility evaluation conducted according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The evaluation was performed using the WCAG Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM), which defines the evaluation scope, explores the product, selects a representative sample set, evaluates that sample set and reports the findings.

The scores in this report count a success criterion as met when it was recorded as passed or as not present in the evaluated content. A criterion with one or more issues counts as failed. A criterion without a recorded outcome counts as not tested and is not counted as met. A score based on a sample set does not constitute a WCAG conformance claim for the entire product.

The identified issues have been assessed for severity and difficulty. Each issue includes a recommendation for resolving the problem.


Scope

Evaluated product

Example Website

Scope items

  • https://example.com
  • https://example.com/contact
  • https://example.com/products
  • https://example.com/blog

Not in scope

  • https://example.com/admin

Additional evaluation requirements

Requirements agreed between the evaluator and the commissioner beyond what is needed to evaluate conformance with WCAG.

None

Accessibility support

The following combinations of operating systems, browsers, and assistive technologies were used to assess accessibility.

  • Windows 11 with Chrome and NVDA
  • macOS with Safari and VoiceOver
  • Android with Chrome and TalkBack

Technologies used

The following technologies are relied upon by the evaluated product.

  • HTML
  • CSS
  • JavaScript
  • WAI-ARIA

Representative sample set

Representative sample set
TitleURLDescription
Homepagehttps://example.com (Homepage, opens in a new tab)The homepage of the website
Contact pagehttps://example.com/contact (Contact page, opens in a new tab)Page with contact form
Product overviewhttps://example.com/products (Product overview, opens in a new tab)Overview of all products
Blog posthttps://example.com/blog/example-post (Blog post, opens in a new tab)An example of a blog post

Results

Perceivable

Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.

1.1: Text Alternatives

A

1.1.1: Non-text Content

Failed

1.2: Time-based Media

A

1.2.1: Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded)

Not present
A

1.2.2: Captions (Prerecorded)

Not present
A

1.2.3: Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded)

Not present
AA

1.2.4: Captions (Live)

Not present
AA

1.2.5: Audio Description (Prerecorded)

Not present

1.3: Adaptable

A

1.3.1: Info and Relationships

Passed
A

1.3.2: Meaningful Sequence

Passed
A

1.3.3: Sensory Characteristics

Passed
AA

1.3.4: Orientation

Passed
AA

1.3.5: Identify Input Purpose

Passed

1.4: Distinguishable

A

1.4.1: Use of Color

Passed
A

1.4.2: Audio Control

Not present
AA

1.4.3: Contrast (Minimum)

Passed
AA

1.4.4: Resize Text

Passed
AA

1.4.5: Images of Text

Passed
AA

1.4.10: Reflow

Passed
AA

1.4.11: Non-text Contrast

Passed
AA

1.4.12: Text Spacing

Passed
AA

1.4.13: Content on Hover or Focus

Passed

Operable

User interface components and navigation must be operable.

2.1: Keyboard Accessible

A

2.1.1: Keyboard

Failed
A

2.1.2: No Keyboard Trap

Passed
A

2.1.4: Character Key Shortcuts

Passed

2.2: Enough Time

A

2.2.1: Timing Adjustable

Not present
A

2.2.2: Pause, Stop, Hide

Not present

2.3: Seizures and Physical Reactions

A

2.3.1: Three Flashes or Below Threshold

Not present

2.4: Navigable

A

2.4.1: Bypass Blocks

Passed
A

2.4.2: Page Titled

Passed
A

2.4.3: Focus Order

Passed
A

2.4.4: Link Purpose (In Context)

Passed
AA

2.4.5: Multiple Ways

Passed
AA

2.4.6: Headings and Labels

Passed
AA

2.4.7: Focus Visible

Failed
AA

2.4.11: Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)

Passed

2.5: Input Modalities

A

2.5.1: Pointer Gestures

Not present
A

2.5.2: Pointer Cancellation

Passed
A

2.5.3: Label in Name

Passed
A

2.5.4: Motion Actuation

Not present
AA

2.5.7: Dragging Movements

Not present
AA

2.5.8: Target Size (Minimum)

Passed

Understandable

Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable.

3.1: Readable

A

3.1.1: Language of Page

Passed
AA

3.1.2: Language of Parts

Passed

3.2: Predictable

A

3.2.1: On Focus

Passed
A

3.2.2: On Input

Passed
AA

3.2.3: Consistent Navigation

Passed
AA

3.2.4: Consistent Identification

Passed
A

3.2.6: Consistent Help

Passed

3.3: Input Assistance

A

3.3.1: Error Identification

Passed
A

3.3.2: Labels or Instructions

Failed
AA

3.3.3: Error Suggestion

Passed
AA

3.3.4: Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data)

Not present
A

3.3.7: Redundant Entry

Not present
AA

3.3.8: Accessible Authentication (Minimum)

Not present

Robust

Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.

4.1: Compatible

A

4.1.2: Name, Role, Value

Failed
AA

4.1.3: Status Messages

Passed