Introduction

If you’re working on digital products, you’ve likely heard: accessibility matters. In 2025, as legal regulations increase and user expectations rise, getting your accessibility testing right is no longer optional. The question that often comes up is: Should you rely more on manual accessibility testing or automated accessibility testing?

The answer is: neither alone is enough. You need to understand what each method offers, when to apply it, and how it fits into a comprehensive accessibility compliance testing strategy.

Let’s break it down.

What is accessibility testing?

Accessibility testing checks whether your website, web app, or mobile app can be used by people with disabilities, for example, those who rely on screen readers, keyboard navigation, voice controls, or other assistive technologies.

It’s also about meeting accessibility standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the European Accessibility Act (EAA), and others. 

In short, accessibility compliance testing is about ensuring your digital experience works for everyone, no missed users, no legal blind spots, and better usability overall.

Manual Accessibility Testing

What it is

Manual accessibility testing is the process in which real testers, often with accessibility expertise, navigate the product using various assistive technologies (screen readers, keyboard-only, voice input, etc.) and verify that users with disabilities can complete key tasks.

What it covers

• Checking keyboard navigation: Is everything operable via keyboard? Are focus states visible?
• Screen reader support: Check that elements are announced with correct labels, roles, and states, form errors and required fields are read aloud, headings follow a logical order, focus moves predictably, and dynamic updates are properly announced to users.
• Real-world tasks: Can a user fill out a form, navigate a modal dialog, use a custom component?
• Visual/verbal clarity: Are error messages clear? Does the experience make sense when you don’t rely on visual cues alone?

Strengths

• Catches issues automated tools can’t: For example, meaningful alt text, reading order, layout that only makes sense visually.
• Tests actual user flows: It sees whether someone can complete tasks, not just whether code passes specific rules. 
• Handles custom components, dynamic content, and complex interactions where automation may struggle.

Limitations

• Time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially for large sites/apps.
• Requires skilled accessibility testers. 
• Less consistent across runs: human judgments can vary.

Automated Accessibility Testing

What it is

Automated accessibility testing uses tools that scan your codebase, markup, CSS, and the rendered page, against patterns and accessibility standards. These tools flag potential issues so you can catch them early. 

What it covers

• Missing alt attributes, empty links, improper heading structure.
• Color contrast issues.
• Integration with CI/CD pipelines: automated scans can run on every build.

Strengths

• Fast and scalable: you can scan large websites/apps quickly for obvious issues. 
• Consistent: the same rules are applied the same way each time. 
• Helps enforce baseline accessibility compliance throughout your development lifecycle.

Limitations

• Can miss many issues that require human judgment: meaningful alt text, keyboard traps, and logical reading order.
• Can generate false positives (things flagged that aren’t actually problems) or false negatives (issues missed). 
• Doesn’t verify full user flows or real assistive-technology behavior.
• No tool currently covers 100% of the WCAG requirements.

Manual vs Automated Accessibility Testing – Side-by-Side

What this really means is: neither method alone is sufficient. For robust accessibility compliance testing, you combine both.

Why You Need Both in 2025

• With increasing regulation (e.g., updates to ADA, EN 301 549, etc.), the risk of non-compliance is higher. Automated tools help you enforce baseline standards, and manual testing gives confidence that the experience is genuinely usable.
• Digital products are more dynamic: SPAs, custom widgets, mobile apps, and voice interfaces alone won’t cover everything.
• User expectations are higher: people expect seamless, inclusive experiences. A checkbox-based automated test may pass, yet users with disabilities might still struggle with navigation or comprehension.
• The cost of remediation grows if you find issues late in the cycle. Automated scanning early + manual human review before release = smarter risk management.

When to Choose Manual Accessibility Testing

Use manual testing when you:

• Validate complex user flows (e.g., checkout, onboarding, custom widgets) and ensure users with assistive tech can complete tasks.
• Need to test non-standard or custom controls, dynamic states (pop-ups, live updates) that automated tools cannot fully assess. 
• Test for accessibility and verify full user experience rather than just code compliance.
• Have hit a stage where the automated results are “clean,” but you want to validate the real lived experience.

Also read - How to optimize user experience for websites

When to Choose Automated Accessibility Testing

Use automated testing when you:

• Want to enforce accessibility rules early in your dev lifecycle, integrated into CI/CD.
• Have a large site or app where manually checking every page or build would be impractical.
• Need to catch standard, code-pattern issues at scale: missing alt tags, empty links, wrong heading levels, etc. 
• Want to monitor ongoing compliance and generate reports over time.

Building a Practical Hybrid Strategy

Here’s a suggested approach you can adopt in 2025 for accessibility compliance testing:

1. Baseline Automated Scanning

• Integrate automated accessibility testing into your CI/CD pipeline.
• Set up routine scans for code/markup issues.
• Use the output to fix high-volume, low-complexity issues (e.g., alt text, color contrast, heading structure).
• HeadSpin helps here by letting teams run automated tests on real devices and browsers across multiple OS versions, so results aren’t limited to ideal lab conditions.

2. Manual Deep Dive

• Once automated scans catch and fix the obvious issues, schedule manual accessibility testing for key flows, custom components, mobile versions, and assistive-tech scenarios.
• Use real devices to simulate actual user scenarios.
• For example, verify keyboard-only use, screen-reader navigation, logical reading order, and focus management.

3. Coverage Plan & Prioritisation

• Decide which pages, components, and flows get manual review based on risk and usage.
• Use analytics to identify the highest-traffic areas or the conversions that matter most.
• Use automated scans to cover the “broad surface”, and manual testing to cover “deep flows”.

4. Continual Monitoring & Regression

• Automate scans regularly (e.g., nightly, per build).
• Use dashboards and VPAT reports to validate accessibility compliance over time.
• HeadSpin’s regression monitoring helps teams catch UI or functional changes that accidentally introduce new accessibility barriers.

5. Use Real Devices and Assistive Technology

• Testing must include real devices and real assistive tools (e.g., screen readers like NVDA and VoiceOver) to ensure the user experience is valid. 
• HeadSpin provides a wide range of real devices and OS to validate accessibility under the same conditions your end users face.

Common Pitfalls & How to Avoid Them

1. Pitfall: Relying solely on automated tools and assuming compliance is achieved.

• Avoid by: Always follow up with manual testing, especially for flows and assistive-tech scenarios.

2. Pitfall: Manual testing only once at the end of development.

• Avoid by: Embedding accessibility into the development lifecycle, using automated checks early, and conducting manual reviews iteratively.

3. Pitfall: Treating all pages as equal and missing the areas that most commonly break for assistive-technology users.

• Avoid by: Prioritising manual testing for navigation, forms, modals, custom UI components, and key user flows where accessibility failures block tasks.

Conclusion

In 2025, it’s not manual vs automated accessibility testing. You need both. Automation gives you speed and coverage, while manual testing confirms that real users with assistive tools can actually use your product.

Build automation into every build, then use manual checks for real-world flows and assistive-tech behaviour. That’s how you move beyond basic compliance and deliver a genuinely inclusive experience.

If you want to streamline this hybrid approach, platforms like HeadSpin can help you run both automated and manual accessibility tests on real devices.

Book A Demo

FAQs

Q1. Can I skip manual testing if my automated tool shows zero errors?

Ans:  No. Automated tools scan code patterns and known issues, but they cannot interpret context, reading order, screen reader behaviour, keyboard traps, etc. Manual testing is still necessary.

Q2. What percentage of accessibility issues can automated tools catch?

Ans: Automated tools typically catch a portion of issues (some sources estimate around ~50% of the total), mainly code-level problems. The rest require human review. (Exact numbers vary with context.)

Q3. At what stage should I introduce automated accessibility tests?

Ans: As early as possible: ideally during design. This helps catch issues before they become costly to fix. Also helps enforce baseline accessibility compliance.