The playbook
Web Accessibility: Review Process
A useful web accessibility review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: component, barrier, test, repair. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
A visible field label, a specific error message, and a clearly visible keyboard focus can materially improve a form journey. Check the order of focus and whether controls have understandable names. Automated testing can identify some issues but does not replace trying the task.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Check keyboard access focus and meaningful labels | Is the supporting component current and traceable? |
| Provide text alternatives and readable contrast | Does barrier support the decision being made? |
| Test forms errors and complete user journeys | Can the next owner verify repair? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to assuming an automated score proves every interaction is accessible. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, combine automated checks with manual keyboard and assistive-technology testing. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected page or interaction record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to resolved barriers in critical journeys using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Verify the actual visitor journey on a narrow screen and with a keyboard. A design can look complete while hiding an unreachable control or a missing confirmation. Record the task attempted and what happened at the end.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixHUB run this for every client.
Start now