ComplyPath

Manual vs. automated

Automated scanners catch 30–40 % of WCAG issues.

The other 60% require a human tester — and often, a person who uses assistive technology every day. Here's what falls through the gap when you ship a Lighthouse report and call it done.

Automated tools find

The obvious 30%

  • Missing alt text on images
  • Colour contrast values below AA
  • Empty links or buttons
  • Missing form labels
  • Duplicate ARIA IDs
  • Basic HTML structure errors

These matter — but they're the floor, not the ceiling. Passing an automated scan does not mean you conform to WCAG 2.2 AA.

Only manual + PWD testing finds

The critical 60%

  • Screen reader announcement order
  • Focus traps in modals & menus
  • Keyboard-only flow completion
  • ARIA that reads correctly (not just exists)
  • Cognitive load & error recovery
  • Alt text that actually describes context
  • Colour used as the only cue
  • Meaningful reading order for AT users
  • Live region announcement timing
  • Real completion of tasks with AT

This is the difference between "our scanner says we're good" and "a person using a screen reader can actually complete checkout."

Real example

The checkout that passes every scanner — and fails every screen reader.

A recent SaaS checkout scored 100 on Lighthouse. Manual testing found:

  • The credit-card error announced silently — screen reader users didn't know their payment failed.
  • Tab order jumped from the coupon field to the footer, skipping the submit button entirely.
  • The 'processing' spinner had no live-region announcement — users assumed the page had frozen.
  • The confirmation modal trapped focus behind an off-screen close button.

None of these are automation-detectable. All of them are lawsuit-grade WCAG failures. This is why every ComplyPath plan layers manual testing — and why Plan B and C add real users with assistive tech.

Stop trusting bots with your legal exposure.

Get a manual audit quote