Your accessibility score is lying to you
Source: Dev.to
The problem with automated accessibility scores
Automated accessibility testing tools—such as axe‑core by Deque, WAVE, and Lighthouse—are a bit like spell‑check for web accessibility. They’re great for spotting and fixing many common issues quickly.
There are a whole range of tools that provide similar services, detecting many of the most frequent accessibility problems across a page.
How this scoring misleads those in power
I recently sat in a presentation where a Product Owner and Lead Designer proudly displayed an automated score of 70 %, calling the product “almost there.” The reality was far from it.
If we accept Deque’s claim that tools detect 57 % of issues, a “70 %” automated score actually reflects only about 39.9 % of true accessibility compliance. This discrepancy convinces stakeholders that most work is done, while the majority of blockers remain.
Approximate conversion of automated scores to real‑world coverage
| Automated score (%) | Approx. % of actual issues detected (57 %) |
|---|---|
| 30 | 17.1 |
| 40 | 22.8 |
| 50 | 28.5 |
| 60 | 34.2 |
| 70 | 39.9 |
| 80 | 45.6 |
| 90 | 51.3 |
| 100 | 57.0 |
The wider consequences
When teams chase higher automated scores, accessibility becomes a checkbox exercise rather than a genuine effort to create inclusive experiences. Developers start “fixing for the tool” instead of fixing for disabled users, aiming only to get a green light.
Negative effects
- Superficial, performative changes that satisfy the tool but don’t unblock disabled people.
- False confidence: businesses believe they’re compliant when they’re not.
- Leadership may use scores to justify cutting accessibility investment.
- Disabled users continue to struggle with tasks such as checkout, navigation, or interactive features.
Why automated tools still matter
Don’t get me wrong—automated accessibility tools are valuable. They excel at identifying obvious issues and ensuring consistency across large codebases. However, they are only a starting point, not a comprehensive solution, and they never replace testing with real disabled users.
Things that can’t be skipped
- Manual testing with assistive technologies
- User testing with people with disabilities
Without these, even a “perfect” automated score is essentially meaningless.
Time to get uncomfortable
The uncomfortable truth is that many organisations treat accessibility as risk management, not as a commitment to unblocking people. Leaders often see it as a protection mechanism rather than a people‑first initiative.
- Companies invest in automated tools and chase high scores so that, if challenged legally, they can point to those numbers as “evidence” of compliance—hoping no one looks too closely.
- Vendors of accessibility testing tools have a vested interest in keeping scores high; a higher score looks better in sales demos, and they collect subscription fees regardless of whether disabled users can actually use the product or service.
Update the metrics
I would love to see these tools re‑calibrate their scoring metrics. Imagine if axe‑core or Lighthouse had a maximum score of 57 %—there would be no way to reach 100 %, instantly shifting the industry’s understanding of what those numbers mean.
Misunderstanding scores gives organisations a dangerous illusion of compliance and rarely improves the experience for disabled people.
Further reading
- A false sense of accessibility: What automated testing tools are missing #id24 2025
- Accessible.org: Accessibility Scans Reliably Flag 13 % of WCAG Criteria
- [LinkedIn: Automated Accessibility Test Tools Find Even Less] (link incomplete in original)
- [Less than 30%–50%](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/automated-accessibility-test-tools-find-even-less-than-robert-dodd-pk7be/)
- [The Problem with Automated Website Accessibility Testing Tools](https://karlgroves.com/the-problem-with-automated-website-accessibility-testing-tools/)
**Cover image alt text**
> Two large circular graphics are shown side by side on a light background.
> The left circle is green with “100%” inside and labelled “Automated accessibility score.”
> The right circle is orange with “57%” inside and labelled “Actual issues detected.”
> Below the circles, a caption reads: “Automated testing tools only catch a fraction of real accessibility issues.”