Accessibility Audit Report
Website audited: Nonprofit website (anonymized for portfolio)
Audit type: WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with WCAG 2.2 considerations
Tools used: Lighthouse, Wave, Axe DevTools, manual checks
1. Introduction
This audit was completed as part of the WCAG Compliance: Web Accessibility Best Practices course on Coursera. The goal was to evaluate a live nonprofit website against the WCAG 2.1 Level AA standard, which is the current baseline most organizations aim for. I also looked at the new WCAG 2.2 criteria to make the review more forward-looking.
2. Test Results (Overview)
● Accessibility score: 68/100
● 5 images missing alt text (including one linked image)
● 18 instances of low color contrast between text and background
● 4 structural alerts: skipped heading levels, redundant links, small text, and a video missing captions
● 12 structural elements identified correctly (navigation, footer, lists, headings, etc.)
These findings represent the most common barriers users face: missing descriptions for images, poor colour contrast, and navigation issues that make it harder for screen reader users and people with low vision to use the site effectively.
3. Findings
The findings are grouped under the four accessibility principles known as
POUR:
Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust.
Perceivable
● Several images are missing alternative text, including one linked image.
● One spacer image has incorrect empty alt text
● 18 instances of very low contrast between text and background.
● Some text is very small and hard to read.
● A video is missing captions.
Positive: The page language is set correctly, and some image buttons already use alt text.
Operable
● A few links don’t have clear names, making them hard for screen reader users.
● Redundant links appear side by side, pointing to the same page.
● Heading levels are skipped (for example, going from H1 straight to H3).
● Some touch targets, like buttons and links, are smaller than the recommended size.
Understandable
● Headings are not always in sequential order, which can confuse assistive
technology users.
Robust
● ARIA roles such as aria and aria-expanded are present but should be checked to confirm correct use.
● Structural elements like navigation, footer, and lists are marked up properly.
4. WCAG 2.2 Considerations
Although the main review was against WCAG 2.1, I also checked for common issues
covered in the 2.2 update:
● Keyboard focus should remain visible and not be hidden behind sticky
headers.
● Focus outlines need to be more noticeable and meet contrast requirements.
● Interactive elements should be at least 24x24px where possible.
● Drag-and-drop actions should have alternative ways to operate.
● Help options (chat, FAQ, contact) should appear consistently on all pages.
● Forms should not require users to enter the same information more than once.
5. Recommendations
High priority fixes:
● Add descriptive alt text to all meaningful images.
● Correct alt text for spacer/decorative images.
● Fix color contrast issues to meet at least a 4.5:1 ratio.
● Increase small text size for better readability.
● Add captions to videos.
● Give all links clear, descriptive names.
● Remove or combine redundant links.
● Fix heading structure so levels follow a logical order.
● Increase the size of touch targets (links and buttons).
Future-facing improvements (2.2):
● Improve keyboard focus visibility and contrast.
● Ensure help options appear in a consistent place.
● Streamline forms to reduce repeated input.
● Provide non-drag alternatives for drag-and-drop actions.
6. Conclusion
Fixing these issues will make the website easier to use for people with disabilities, including screen reader users, people with low vision, and those who navigate by keyboard. It will also align the site with WCAG 2.1 Level AA, while preparing it for WCAG 2.2.