State of Web Accessibility

Summary patterns

• Automated scores often sit in a mid band for marketing sites until templates pick up labels, contrast, and heading discipline.
• The same few themes—non-text content, contrast, form labels, and keyboard traps—show up early in many scans.
• Trend lines move slowly; regressions often follow theme or plugin updates rather than one-off content edits.

Deep dives: issue library, audits by site type, WCAG in plain English.

Top issues distribution (illustrative)

Grouped by WCAG pillar-style themes. Bar length is relative within this mock dataset, not a raw rule count.

• Perceivable (alt, contrast, media)38%
• Operable (keyboard, focus, navigation)27%
• Understandable (forms, labels, errors)22%
• Robust (IDs, ARIA, parsing)13%

Most common automated findings

Approximate share of flagged rules in blended illustrative samples.

• Missing or weak alternative text~32%
• Insufficient text contrast~24%
• Form fields without labels~18%
• Buttons without accessible names~11%
• Vague link text~9%

Trends over time (mock)

Illustrative average automated scores by quarter—useful for narrative only. We keep the curve gentle to reflect how template-level fixes lag behind content churn.

Average score ranges (0–100)

How we describe axe-style summaries—not legal compliance.

• 0–49

  Usually many serious/critical automated findings; prioritize templates and navigation.

• 50–74

  Mixed severity; often contrast, labels, and heading order on key flows.

• 75–89

  Fewer blockers; remaining items may be moderate/minor or context-dependent.

• 90–100

  Automated clean-up—still verify keyboard, forms, and dynamic content manually.

WCAG themes that show up often

Criteria often implicated when automation and quick manual checks overlap.

• 1.1.1 Non-text Content — Images and icons
• 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) — Visual design
• 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) — Content
• 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions — Forms
• 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value — Components and ARIA