“Technology is a useful servant but a dangerous master.” — Christian Lous Lange

As accessibility professionals, we have an arsenal of tools and checkers to help us automate the WCAG, or Section 508, testing and remediation process. Sites like WAVE, plugins such as Axe DevTools, and license-based programs, including Siteimprove, are valuable additions to our toolbox that can quickly and deftly assess the overall health of a site or app’s accessibility according to prescribed guidelines.

But they’re not enough.

Automated tools are limited.

We owe it to our users to take a holistic approach and perform a good, non-automated manual check of our content and code. Here are a few reasons why.

Tools are built to check against specific guidelines, not people.

Siteimprove, for example, can scan websites against Section 508 and WCAG 2.0, 2.1, or 2.2 A, AA, and AAA conformance guidelines and check for ARIA issues and what the company considers best practices, e.g., appropriate use of italics. 

What it cannot do is tell me whether my son, who has ADHD and whose brain works differently than mine, can understand the steps needed to open a checking account in the same way I can. Additionally, I would argue that two people’s differing experience levels with financial services websites, outside of any disability, signal a need for accessible design. 

A good manual review would help highlight issues real humans might encounter that prevent them from completing all the tasks needed. For example, if the banking website recently underwent a redesign, and functions are no longer where they were, this could potentially cause friction. 

Good user experience requires designing for users, not for machines.

A site can technically pass a checker but not meet a user’s needs.

My friend, Denise, who is almost completely blind, uses a screen reader to navigate websites and apps. She would benefit from alt text on images to help her understand the purpose and content of photos, charts, or graphs. 

I recently reviewed a site built by a small team under a tight deadline. The page included a list of employees, including their photos and titles. In my review, I noticed that the alt text added to Jennifer’s photo identified her as Robert. 

Additionally, imagery such as maps or charts can benefit from thoroughly describing the presented data. For example, a bar chart showing a company’s financial health year over year may need a more thorough description that includes the chart’s purpose and metrics. 

Users’ technology ecosystems can vary.

While an automated testing tool can review the code of a web page and give feedback on how closely it conforms to WCAG or Section 508 standards, it cannot adequately test individual user experiences, taking into consideration:

• Operating systems (Windows, MacOS, iOs, Android, Linux)
• Browsers (Edge, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and all mobile versions)
• Input and output devices (screen readers, keyboards, mice, etc.)
• User settings (color temperature, contrast settings, dark mode, etc.)

A similar issue exists in environments that are not publicly accessible. A design may be in the prototype or development phase and, therefore, unavailable to automated checkers. It may also contain sensitive information (such as a page on an internal site for the payroll department). In this case, manual testing may be your only option.

An example of a user who would benefit from this type of testing is my mom, who carries an iPhone 7 with the font enlarged by default and navigates sites like Amazon with a different user experience than I do on my MacBook. 

Humans are at the core of what we do.

Relying solely on an automated tool to solve a problem experienced by humans without including a human in the process is like using ChatGPT to craft a love song. It can technically be done to an extent, but it won’t resonate emotionally the way it would if it had been created by a talented songwriter, preferably one who has firsthand experience with the subject.

A machine cannot adequately replace a person with their uniquely personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

Furthermore, we cannot, in good conscience, call ourselves human-centered design professionals if humans are not, in fact, at the center of what we do.