Accessibility audited as three methods, not one tool
QAble runs accessibility audits using a three-method approach: automated, manual and assistive-technology testing, aligned with WCAG 2.2, ADA, Section 508 and the European Accessibility Act. Defensible findings, engineering-ready output, jurisdiction-mapped conformance.
Accessibility audit covers:
Engineering teams that rely on QAble
Why an audit is three methods, not one tool
Automated scanners detect roughly a third of WCAG defects. Manual inspection finds another large set automation cannot judge. Assistive technology surfaces the experiential defects that matter most to real users.
Without structured accessibility audit coverage
Previous audits relied on a single automated tool: detectable violations were found but experiential defects went undetected, and the findings register gave engineering an incomplete backlog to act on.
Single-tool gapFindings arrived as a long PDF narrative with no severity rubric, no WCAG criterion mapping and no engineering surface routing, so teams spent more time triaging the report than fixing the product.
PDF outputEach audit cycle restated findings from the previous one without traceability to closed issues, so teams spent the same time and budget rediscovering defects audit after audit with nothing carried forward.
Audit driftADA, Section 508 and EAA were referenced together as if interchangeable, leaving conformance evidence that is not actually mapped to the regulation the regulator or procurement team is asking about.
Jurisdiction gapVPAT and ACR documents were issued without a defensible underlying audit record, so conformance claims could not be substantiated when a regulator question or procurement review asked for supporting evidence.
VPAT exposureThe QAble Solution
An audit done well is a defensible record: three methods, one register, jurisdiction-mapped conformance and a remediation-ready output engineering can act on.
Three-method coverage
Automated, manual and assistive technology running in parallel across the full audit scope.
Engineering-ready output
Findings delivered with severity, WCAG criterion, reproduction evidence and effort estimate.
Jurisdiction-mapped
One audit produces parallel conformance alignment for ADA, Section 508 and EAA.
Audit-to-audit trace
Each audit starts where the last one ended, not back at the first finding.
Audit disciplines we deliver
Six disciplines applied as one audit engagement, selected and combined depending on whether the engagement is a targeted sprint, a full conformance audit or continuous stewardship.
Automated scanning
Breadth-first automated scans using axe-core, WAVE, Pa11y and Lighthouse run across every audit-scope page so coverage is wide, repeatable and grounded in measurable evidence.
Manual inspection
Manual evaluation of WCAG criteria automation cannot judge: name/role/value semantics, focus order, error identification, content meaning and form interaction depth.
Assistive technology
Real assistive technology coverage on real devices: NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, TalkBack, Dragon, switch input and screen magnifiers, to surface experiential defects no scan can identify.
Mobile and native
Mobile and native-app audit covering iOS VoiceOver, Android TalkBack, dynamic type, motion preferences and the platform-specific accessibility APIs that desktop audits miss.
Document accessibility
PDF, presentation and document accessibility: tagged PDF structure, reading order, alt text, table semantics and the document forms that often slip through web-only audits.
Reporting and conformance
Defensible audit reporting: findings register, WCAG criterion mapping, severity rubric, jurisdictional alignment (ADA, Section 508, EAA) and a remediation-ready output engineering can run.
The QAble accessibility audit methodology
A five-stage rhythm that takes audit work from scope definition to defensible findings register and conformance pack, with documented evidence at every stage.
Scope and sample
Define audit scope: pages, journeys, components, mobile and document surfaces. Select a representative sample sized to the conformance level required.
Automated sweep
Run multi-engine automated scans using axe-core, WAVE, Pa11y and Lighthouse across the audit scope, and triage results to filter false positives and establish a breadth-first baseline.
Manual inspection
Specialist evaluation of WCAG criteria automation cannot judge: semantic structure, focus order, error identification, content meaning and form interaction depth.
Assistive tech
Real-device assistive-technology audit covering NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, TalkBack, voice control and switch input, capturing session evidence for every experiential defect found.
Findings and conformance
Consolidate findings into a severity-mapped register, produce VPAT/ACR draft, accessibility statement and jurisdictional alignment for ADA, Section 508 and EAA.
What an audit engagement produces
Documented artefacts at audit, evidence, reporting and conformance phases, so audits become defensible records engineering, legal and procurement can all read.
Audit
Audit scope and method documentation, findings register with WCAG criterion mapping and severity rubric.
Evidence
Assistive technology recording library, reproduction screenshots and baseline scan reports backing every finding.
Reporting
Executive summary, engineering report, remediation backlog seed and release accessibility posture statement.
Conformance
VPAT and ACR draft, jurisdictional alignment pack, accessibility statement draft and audit cycle calendar.
Audit mistakes a structured engagement removes
These are the patterns we replace when QAble takes over an accessibility audit cycle, each one quietly converting an audit into a defensive document rather than a defensible record.
Single-tool audits
Audits relying solely on one automated scanner cover breadth but miss depth: experiential defects that matter to real users go undetected and the findings register is incomplete.
Findings as PDF
Audit output is a long PDF narrative that engineering cannot triage: no severity rubric, no WCAG criterion mapping, no engineering surface routing to direct findings to the right team.
No AT verification
Findings claimed without assistive-technology evidence are disputed at triage because no one captured the real-device session that produced them.
Jurisdictional conflation
ADA, Section 508 and EAA referenced as if interchangeable, leaving conformance evidence that is not aligned with the regulation that actually applies to the product.
No audit-to-remediation trace
Each audit restates known defects without traceability to closed findings: same audit, same backlog, same time and money spent discovering the same issues twice.
Mobile and PDF skipped
Audit scope quietly omits mobile native apps or PDF documents: exactly the surfaces the next regulator question or customer complaint will ask about.
Ways to work with QAble
Three engagement shapes covering a focused targeted audit, a full conformance audit and continuous audit stewardship across releases.
2–3 weeks
Targeted audit sprint
A focused three-method audit on a defined surface: automated, manual and AT, producing an engineering-ready findings register and remediation-ready output.
Deliverables
Best for
4–10 weeks
Full conformance audit
A full WCAG 2.2 conformance audit across web, mobile and document surfaces, with VPAT/ACR draft and parallel jurisdictional alignment for ADA, Section 508 and EAA.
Deliverables
Best for
Ongoing
Continuous audit stewardship
A standing audit-cycle capability: sprint-aligned automated baseline, quarterly manual and AT audits and conformance-pack stewardship across releases.
Deliverables
Best for
Why choose QAble
QAble brings defensible methodology: three-method, engineering-ready and jurisdiction-mapped, with the tooling to back every finding with real evidence.
QAble accessibility audit expertise
Questions buyers actually ask.
Direct answers to the questions we get on the first advisor call.
Why use three methods instead of one?
No single method covers WCAG completely. Automated scanners detect roughly a third of WCAG defects: fast, broad and repeatable. Manual inspection covers the criteria automation cannot judge. Assistive technology surfaces the experiential defects that matter most to users. Run together, the three produce a defensible audit record; run separately, each is incomplete.
Which standards do you audit against?
WCAG 2.2 is the default reference, with conformance level (A, AA, AAA) selected per scope. Where ADA Title III, Section 508 or the European Accessibility Act apply, the same audit produces parallel jurisdictional alignment: the underlying evidence is shared and the conformance pack is mapped to each regulation that applies.
Do you cover mobile native apps and PDF documents?
Yes. Mobile native (iOS VoiceOver, Android TalkBack, dynamic type, motion preferences) and document accessibility (tagged PDF, reading order, alt text, table semantics) are first-class scopes in the audit framework, explicitly added rather than quietly omitted.
How is the audit output structured for engineering?
Findings register with severity rubric, WCAG criterion, engineering surface, reproduction evidence, AT recording reference and effort estimate. Engineering can triage and route directly without re-investigating each finding. The register is reusable for remediation, regression and the next audit cycle.
Audit accessibility as a defensible record, not just a scan report
QAble helps engineering, legal and procurement teams build accessibility conformance evidence that stands up to regulator review and procurement scrutiny.
Accessibility audits using three methods, one register
Direct access to QAble's accessibility engagement leads. Start with a free QA audit or talk through your audit scope, AT coverage and jurisdictional alignment posture.
Talk to QA Advisor
Direct access to QAble's accessibility engagement leads.
Response within 24 hours