Manual accessibility tests: Why you need more than automated testing

Manual accessibility tests: Why automated checks are not enough

Before investing in new software for accessibility testing, one question often arises: where do we actually stand right now? This is precisely where manual usability tests for accessibility come in. They provide a clear, practical overview of the current state of your digital accessibility – as a one‑off, without the need to introduce an entire system straight away.

Such a test shows you how people with different impairments truly experience your website or application, and makes visible where specific barriers exist. On this basis, you can decide with confidence which next steps make the most sense.

Moving from baseline to sustainable strategy

In a second step, a digital accessibility platform helps you to analyse and improve accessibility in a sustainable way. It supports you in fixing issues, documenting progress and ensuring with every change that accessibility is not a one‑time effort, but an ongoing commitment.

Holistic, not just a snapshot

At Eye-Able, manual accessibility testing doesn't end with a static report. We centralise all findings from both automated and manual audits within the Eye-Able Dashboard. For the first time, this gives you a complete picture of your digital accessibility in one place—transparent, easy to track, and permanently documented.

In this article, you will learn why a manual test is particularly worthwhile as a starting point, how it works and which concrete recommendations for action can be derived from it.

What is a manual accessibility test?

In a manual accessibility test, our accessibility experts examine your web pages using various assistive technologies such as screen readers (e.g. NVDA, JAWS or VoiceOver). Keyboard functions, focus indicators, ARIA attributes, meaningful alternative texts and semantic HTML structure are carefully analysed. In addition, we involve a diverse team of experts with different impairments to ensure the perspective of affected users is represented.

The goal:

• Reproduce real usage situations

• Identify genuine barriers

• Align technical findings with human experience

New: Manual test results integrated into the Eye-Able Dashboard

At Eye-Able, manual test results are no longer delivered as separate files. Instead, they are documented digitally and provided directly within your dashboard. From there, you can:

• View all audit findings in one place

• Prioritise remedial actions

• Track your progress

• Download reports as PDFs or share them digitally.

This is what clearly distinguishes a manual test from automated tools, which only detect what can be measured mechanically – for example missing alt texts or insufficient contrast ratios.

Complex issues such as unclear form labels, incorrect focus order or error messages that are difficult to understand often remain undiscovered.

What exactly is assessed in a manual accessibility test?

Manual tests cover the full spectrum of digital use. The following checkpoints show which aspects experts specifically evaluate during a manual accessibility test:

Accessibility with keyboard and screen reader

• Can all elements be reached and operated via the keyboard?

• Can users complete all processes (e.g. checkout or form submission) in full?

• Is the focus and reading order logical and easy to follow?

• Are CAPTCHAs accessible, or are there barrier‑free alternatives (e.g. audio or logic questions)?

• Are provided documents such as PDFs, invoices or product descriptions accessible and usable with screen readers?

Dynamic content

• Are dynamically loaded elements (e.g. pop‑ups, basket updates or confirmation messages) correctly detected by the screen reader?

• Is orientation maintained when content changes dynamically?

Forms and inputs

• Are mandatory fields clearly identifiable and properly marked?

• Are expected formats (e.g. date, phone number, email) clearly described?

• Are error messages immediately noticeable, clearly worded, and is focus sensibly directed to them?

Labels and alternative texts

• Are buttons, links and input fields meaningfully labelled?

• Are alternative texts for images present and accurate in content?

• Are states (active/inactive, selected/not selected) communicated correctly?

Layout and responsiveness

• Do layout and content still function when enlarged to 200% or more?

• Is the mobile view fully usable and easy to navigate?

• Are contents displayed consistently – without layout shifts or overlapping elements?

Additional aspects

• Are there time‑limited actions (e.g. basket expiry) and can they be extended or paused?

• Are content, buttons and navigation elements named and presented consistently?

How do automated and manual accessibility tests differ?

Although automated and manual tests pursue the same crucial goal – enabling unrestricted use of websites for all user groups (from people with disabilities to older users or those with situational limitations) – they differ fundamentally in depth, method and significance.

Automated tests

Recent studies show that semi‑automated tests can detect up to 80% of barriers (Deque Report) – considerably more than previously assumed.

However, the decisive difference lies not in the quantity but in the quality and impact of the barriers identified.

An example illustrates this: Even if software detects 80% of errors, a single barrier with a high impact – such as a keyboard trap in the main navigation – can render an entire website inaccessible. Quantitatively this may seem minor, but qualitatively it is critical.

Manual usability tests identify such barriers quickly, whereas they often remain undetected in automated checks.

Manual tests – indispensable despite high automation rates

Manual accessibility tests are carried out by trained experts who actively use websites with assistive technologies such as screen readers, keyboard navigation or magnification software. They assess context and user experience in ways that tools cannot capture, for example:

• the logical focus order and intuitive feel of navigation,

• the clarity of forms and error messages (is the alt text meaningful or merely present?),

• readability and orientation within complex content (cognitive barriers),

• the actual usability for people with different impairments.

Manual tests therefore deliver realistic and reliable results, uncover complex barriers and provide concrete recommendations for improving user experience (UX).

Manage manual accessibility testing centrally – within the Eye-Able Dashboard

With the new audit workflow in the Eye-Able Dashboard, manual accessibility tests are now mapped entirely digitally.

In practical terms, this means: Once you have commissioned a manual test from Eye-Able, our certified testers document every audit step digitally within the Eye-Able Dashboard. Both automated and manual results are displayed together, providing you with central, transparent documentation of your accessibility status.

For every audit step, our testers record the following:

• Issue title and description

• Screenshot

• Recommended action

• Priority level

• Estimated effort

You can also use the interactive audit workflow yourself to document manual tests digitally. We primarily recommend this for accessibility experts or certified testers.

For those just starting their journey, our guided tests in the dashboard are the perfect entry point. These provide clear, step-by-step instructions for beginners and cover key audit requirements of EN 301 549. For holistic accessibility, we recommend following these up with a full manual test—either conducted by your own in-house experts or by commissioning a manual test from Eye-Able’s specialists to ensure total peace of mind.

“I already use testing software – why do I still need this?”

Because software may be fast, but it cannot simulate real use. Automated scans unfortunately do not detect every barrier. Some only become apparent when people actually interact with the website – using a keyboard, a screen reader or with limited vision.

Automated tests provide only a useful first indication of whether a website meets accessibility standards such as WCAG or BITV. For a legally compliant assessment under the German Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) or the European Accessibility Act (EAA), you need manual evaluations by experts who assess each success criterion individually.

Manual tests uncover precisely these hidden obstacles. They assess:

• whether content is meaningfully structured,

• whether navigation works intuitively,

• and whether forms, buttons and messages are easy to understand.

Who are manual tests relevant for?

In short: for anyone who wants to implement accessibility seriously.

They are particularly important if you …

• want to quickly and effectively identify barriers or blocks with a high impact within your digital product,

• must meet legal requirements (e.g. under the EAA or BITV),

• run webshops, forms or login areas that must function flawlessly,

• or have already equipped your website with tools such as Eye‑Able Assist and now want to take the next step towards full WCAG compliance.

Suitable for experienced teams

You and your team can also conduct manual tests within the Eye-Able Dashboard yourselves, particularly if you already have a foundational understanding of digital accessibility.

Conclusion: Full digital accessibility can only be achieved through manual tests in real usage scenarios.

What are the benefits of a manual test?

Accessible applications not only improve the user experience for people with disabilities, they also enhance overall usability and lead to clearer guidance for all users.

• Reality check: You gain insight into how your service truly works for people with disabilities.

• Practical advice: Results are explained in a personal consultation – with a focus on the most important improvements.

• Lasting impact: The measures improve not only accessibility, but also usability and conversion rates for all users.

What does the test include?

Depending on the product, the test covers between 13 and 112 checkpoints based on WCAG and EN 301549: from analysing HTML and JavaScript structure, through the use of tools such as WAVE, to manual colour‑contrast checks and the evaluation of alternative texts in the code.

A typical manual accessibility test includes:

• Review of selected pages or user journeys – e.g. homepage, product detail page or checkout process

• Analysis against WCAG criteria (A/AA/AAA)

• Screen reader tests (NVDA, JAWS) as well as keyboard navigation

• Evaluation by accessibility experts

• Debrief session with concrete recommendations and prioritisation

This way, you don’t receive a theoretical report, but actionable results that make your website genuinely more inclusive.

Conclusion: True accessibility needs real people

Automated checks and accessibility widgets are certainly important, as they provide valuable insights into technical barriers and are indispensable for continuous monitoring. Yet they only capture what can be measured mechanically. It is only in combination with manual tests based on real user scenarios that a complete picture emerges.

If you want to achieve comprehensive digital accessibility, there is no way around manual accessibility testing. Only then can you ensure that your website and apps meet the requirements of WCAG, EN 301 549 and BITV – and deliver a truly inclusive, accessible user experience for everyone.

Even a single manual test, complemented by professional consultation, can give you a solid first overview of the accessibility of your website or app.