The accessibility module scans a specific URL and detects automatically measurable barriers — contrast, labels, headings, structure. It is not a full WCAG audit: it shows what to fix first and which criteria need a human.
Insight organizes detectable barriers and prepares the manual verification scope.
Every finding includes a WCAG criterion, evidence, affected element, user impact and whether the issue can be confirmed automatically — with no certification promises or EAA compliance claims.
Four steps from URL to decision — without guessing whether the issue is contrast, forms or keyboard navigation.
Text and background color pairs — whether they meet AA on the rendered page.
Field labels, error messages and aria-describedby associations.
Tab order, focus-visible and semantics of interactive elements.
You test a specific URL — homepage, landing or form. You see scan context and barriers detected automatically.
Each finding has context: rule, WCAG criterion, occurrence count and why it may make the page harder to use.
Barriers are ordered by impact on users. You know whether the issue is contrast, labels, structure or needs a keyboard test.
Same methodology · same URL
After fixes, you return to the previous scan with the same methodology and URL. You see whether barriers disappeared.
Action plan
Instead of a raw violation list, the module orders recommendations by impact. You see rules with issues, occurrence counts and estimated effect on the automated score — without promising full conformance.
WCAG criteria map
The four WCAG principles broken into criteria with status: checked automatically, issue found, needs manual review, not applicable or no data. The map does not mean automation checked every criterion.
User groups
The same violations may affect people with color blindness, screen-reader users, keyboard users and seniors differently. The module maps issues to potentially affected groups — this is not user research.
Assistive technologies
Insight analyzes structure, accessible names, roles, landmarks and heading order in the accessibility tree. It does not replace testing with NVDA, JAWS or VoiceOver.
No. Insight detects automatically measurable issues and flags criteria that need manual review. Conformance confirmation requires an expert audit with keyboard, screen readers and contextual judgment.
It is CometWeb’s automated test score (0–100), not a WCAG conformance percentage. It reflects the measurable barrier surface — it does not declare Partially Conforms or full compliance.
Only part of A/AA criteria are scan-measurable. The rest need manual review, do not apply to the page, or have no data yet. The criteria map shows the verification method on every item.
A problem (rule) is a barrier type, e.g. missing form label. An occurrence is a specific element or location. One rule can have many occurrences across many pages.
No. A technical report is not a certificate or conformance statement. Under Honest Operator, automated scope should not claim more than Partially Conforms — legal decisions remain yours.
Trends only make sense with the same methodology (pipeline + scoring), the same URL and comparable scope. When methodology changes, results are not directly comparable — Insight marks that.
Analyze a URL, see rules with issues and the manual verification scope — without promising full WCAG conformance.
