Two complementary methods
Automated and manual accessibility testing belong in the same evidence trail.
Automation is repeatable and scalable. Human testing can assess meaning, behaviour and complete experiences. BarrierTrace keeps both visible so neither is mistaken for the whole answer.
01
What automated accessibility testing does well
Automated tools can inspect code and rendered pages consistently. They are useful for detecting recurring patterns, checking many pages, identifying regressions and giving teams a fast signal about problems that software can determine reliably.
Examples include some missing accessible names, invalid relationships, detectable contrast failures and structural problems. The exact result depends on the page state, viewport and rules being run.
- Repeatable checks across selected pages
- Fast regression signals
- Consistent technical evidence
- Useful prioritisation across a portfolio
02
What needs human review
Software cannot reliably decide whether alternative text communicates the right meaning, whether instructions make sense, whether keyboard interaction follows an understandable pattern or whether a complete journey is usable with assistive technology.
Manual testing brings judgement and lived experience to those questions. It should include appropriate expert techniques and, where possible, research or testing involving disabled people.
- Keyboard and focus behaviour
- Screen-reader experience and announcements
- Meaning, language and content quality
- Zoom, reflow and complete user journeys
03
Why the combined record matters
When automated and manual results live in separate reports, teams can lose scope, ownership and history. BarrierTrace places them together while preserving the type and source of each piece of evidence.
That makes the result more useful for remediation and governance while preventing an automated score from being presented as proof of WCAG conformance.