Digital accessibility is no longer an optional feature—it’s a fundamental requirement. For software and web developers, accessibility ensures that everyone, regardless of ability, can use your product. Automated accessibility testing has emerged as a powerful tool to help developers identify issues, reduce costs, and streamline workflows. However, it’s not without its limitations.
Although automated tools are invaluable, they cannot do everything. From falsely flagged issues to missed contextual nuances, the road to truly accessible digital products takes more than just automation. For test automation specialists, mobile app developers, and QA engineers, understanding these challenges—and learning how to solve them—is critical.
Whether you’re new to accessibility testing or looking to refine your strategy, this post breaks down the top challenges in automated accessibility testing and provides practical solutions to overcome them.
Why Automated Accessibility Testing Matters (But Isn’t Enough)
Before discussing the challenges, it’s essential to understand why accessibility itself is such a priority. Accessibility in digital products ensures compliance with guidelines like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and reduces barriers for people with disabilities. Beyond legal compliance, investing in accessibility improves user experience for all users and expands your audience.
Automated accessibility testing, powered by tools like Deque’s industry-leading Axe engine, can scan websites and apps quickly for ADA and WCAG violations. However, automation alone cannot guarantee a fully accessible product—it requires complementary efforts to address nuanced issues and edge cases.
Below, we explore seven key challenges and offer clear solutions to create truly inclusive digital experiences.
1. Limited Coverage of Accessibility Guidelines
The Challenge:
Automated tools excel at detecting technical issues, such as missing alt text or improper ARIA attributes, but they often fall short on evaluating higher-order problems. For example, tools cannot assess the cognitive load of web content, the readability of colour contrasts in real-world scenarios, or how understandable visual layouts are.
The Solution:
Combine automated and manual testing for a comprehensive approach. Automated tools catch structural flaws, but manual testers can identify issues related to usability, cognitive disabilities, or nuanced visual perception. Tools such as Axe should be part of a broader human-led testing ecosystem.
Tip for testers:
Regular manual audits will ensure guideline criteria such as WCAG 2.1 AAA-level requirements are fully addressed, especially for edge cases beyond automation’s scope.
2. False Positives and False Negatives
The Challenge:
Automated tools often produce false positives—flagging non-issues as errors—or false negatives, where real accessibility issues are missed entirely. This undermines confidence in the results and wastes time validating problems that don’t exist.
The Solution:
- Validate automated findings with human testers for accuracy.
- Use multiple testing tools to minimise errors. For example, pairing Deque’s Axe with WAVE or Lighthouse can enhance overall reliability. Diverse tools capture different types of issues, reducing reliance on a single solution.
Pro tip:
Test multiple scenarios across user workflows to ensure tools aren’t overlooking contextual issues or edge cases.
3. Difficulty Detecting Contextual Issues
The Challenge:
Automation algorithms struggle to interpret context. Is alt text descriptive enough? Does the reading order make logical sense for assistive technologies? These contextual issues—critical for usability—are not something current tools can universally address.
The Solution:
Conduct manual expert reviews and usability testing with assistive technologies like screen readers. For example, have a human tester using NVDA or JAWS assess whether dropdown menus, forms, and images function meaningfully within context.
Invest in usability testing with diverse audiences to uncover barriers and improve accessibility beyond surface-level fixes.
4. Lack of Support for Dynamic Content
The Challenge:
Single Page Applications (SPAs), modal windows, pop-ups, and other interactive elements can confuse accessibility tools. Testing dynamic content can be complex because these elements often load dynamically or trigger with user actions, making them harder to detect and evaluate automatically.
The Solution:
Use AI-powered tools engineered for dynamic content and simulate real-user interactions. Integrate tests as part of E2E (end-to-end) workflows through solutions like TestEvolve Spark, now featuring Deque Axe, to test accessibility effectively within regression tests.
Dynamic content should also be monitored through real-user simulations to complement tool-based evaluations.
5. Accessibility Testing in CI/CD Pipelines
The Challenge:
Fast-paced development cycles in Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines leave little room for time-intensive testing. Prioritising accessibility often takes a back seat.
The Solution:
Automate accessibility checks within your CI/CD pipelines. Tools such as Axe Accessibility Checker make it easy to integrate accessibility into your existing regression tests with a single command. Augment these automated solutions with routine manual audits to detect issues missed during automated cycles.
Streamlining checks during staging ensures accessibility is baked into your workflow, rather than being a last-minute addition.
6. Limited Support for Custom Components
The Challenge:
Automated tools struggle with detecting issues in custom-built UI components. These elements often don’t conform to standard HTML semantics, leaving accessibility gaps that tools cannot interpret effectively.
The Solution:
- Educate developers to code with accessibility in mind and adhere to best practices.
- Implement ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) attributes correctly to provide assistive technologies with the necessary context.
- Custom components should undergo specific manual usability testing to ensure they work seamlessly with tools like screen readers.
Investing in developer training is key to reducing accessibility issues at the source.
7. Ensuring Mobile Accessibility
The Challenge:
Most automated tools focus heavily on web accessibility while mobile-specific issues, such as touch gesture recognition or interactive focus handling, are often overlooked.
The Solution:
Leverage tools designed specifically for mobile testing, such as Google’s Accessibility Scanner or axe Android/iOS frameworks. Complement automated testing with real-device testing across different screen sizes and orientations to validate accessibility in realistic scenarios.
Ensure both web and mobile accessibility are prioritised consistently in your overall development and QA processes.
The Path to Perfect Accessibility
Automated accessibility testing is a vital element of any accessibility strategy, but it works best when paired with manual inspection, expert reviews, and real-world usability testing. By addressing challenges like limited tool coverage, false positives, and contextual nuances, you can create a truly inclusive digital product that reaches—and resonates with—everyone.
Adopting robust tools like Deque’s Axe Accessibility testing engine, especially with integrations such as TestEvolve Spark, makes it simpler to initiate automated checks without disrupting development. Remember, accessibility is not just a compliance requirement; it’s a competitive advantage in today’s digital-first world.
Start improving accessibility with instant automated checks today. Sign up for TestEvolve Spark to experience seamless, AI-driven accessibility testing at scale.
Read Our Recent Blog – Why You Need a Test Automation Dashboard for Better QA Insights
