01 / SCOPE
Define the surface and states.
Record the product, templates, complete journeys, responsive states, environments, access assumptions and requested criteria.
Evidence / method and limits
A useful finding needs a reproducible path.
Automated rules can provide fast signal. Human review adds keyboard flow, screen-reader interpretation, context, user impact and a practical next action. Scope determines what the evidence can support.
01scope and environment are recorded
02automated and human signals stay distinct
03impact and reproduction accompany findings
AAWCAG 2.2 can be an agreed evaluation reference; it is not a legal claim
How testing works
Separate signal from conclusion.
Testing coverage, assistive technology and criteria are agreed for each engagement. Virtually(Creative) owns the contracted technical review; the client owns product context, implementation and organizational or procurement decisions.
02 / EVALUATE
Combine tools with people.
Use automated checks as one input, then manually review keyboard operation, screen-reader output, context and task completion.
03 / REPORT
Make the next test clear.
Give each confirmed finding a location, observed behavior, user impact, reproduction path, recommended direction and limitation.
Sources and standards
Read the source.
These links support the method and scope language. They do not turn a site review into a legal conclusion.
Discuss an audit- 01
W3C evaluation overview
Human evaluation and automated tools answer different parts of an accessibility assessment.
- 02
W3C understanding conformance
Conformance depends on the applicable requirements, full pages and complete processes in the stated scope.
- 03
WCAG 2.2
Testing uses the criteria and scope agreed for the engagement; the applicable legal standard depends on the relevant instrument and scope.
Boundaries
Evidence is not certification.
Do tools determine accessibility?
No. Tools support a review. Human testing and appropriate evaluation are needed to understand interaction, context and complete processes.
Does a finding prove a legal violation?
No. It documents an observed technical behavior within a stated scope. Legal and conformance interpretation belongs to the appropriate reviewers.
Do you publish a conformance badge?
Not without an actual evaluation that supports the claim. A focused review is not a full ACR or universal assurance.