Guide
Accessibility report: what it is and how to build one
An accessibility report records an evaluation of a specific product, at a specific version, on specific dates, against a named standard. This guide covers what belongs in one, how it differs from a statement and from a VPAT or ACR, and how to write one yourself.
This is a how-to, not legal advice, and a report is not a certification. It is evidence of an evaluation you carried out.
What an accessibility report is
A written record of an evaluation: what was tested, against which standard, with which methods, what the results were, and what happens next. It is deliberately narrow: it describes a product version at a moment in time.
A statement says “we aim for WCAG 2.2 AA and here is where to tell us about problems”. A report says “on these dates, a tester ran these checks against these pages, found these issues, ranked like this, and here is the plan”. A report is not a certificate: no body stamps one as valid, and its weight comes from its method and its honesty about scope.
What it contains
Seven sections cover almost every accessibility test report worth reading.
- Scope. The URLs or screens tested, the templates and content types sampled, the journeys covered, the version and date, and what was excluded.
- The standard and success criteria tested. Name the standard and the level. WCAG 2.2 has 13 guidelines under four principles; conformance is decided at the level of individual success criteria, at three levels: A, AA and AAA. Success criterion 4.1.1 Parsing is obsolete in 2.2.
- Test method and tools. Automated, manual or hybrid, which tools at which version, plus the operating system, browser and assistive technology combinations. GOV.UK names Axe, WAVE, ARC Toolkit and SiteImprove for automated checks, and the Firefox Accessibility Inspector for manual work.
- Results. An outcome for every success criterion in scope, not only the ones that failed. The Section508.govguidance uses Supports, Does Not Support and Not Applicable, and asks for an outcome against every standard, even where it does not apply.
- Findings, with severity. Each needs a page reference, the criterion, what a user experiences, how to reproduce it, a screenshot, a code snippet, and a severity level. Define the scale once (for example critical, high, medium, low) and use the same labels throughout.
- Remediation plan. Who owns each fix, in what order, and what is not being fixed and why. Ordering by impact on users rather than effort keeps it honest.
- Retest status. Which findings were fixed and re-verified, which remain open, and the date of the retest. Without it, a report is a snapshot nobody can use to show progress.
Report, statement, VPAT/ACR
A statement is for users. The W3C says it should contain at least a commitment to accessibility, the standard applied, and contact information for people who hit a problem. It recommends also covering known limitations, the measures you take, technical prerequisites such as supported browsers, and the laws that apply.
A VPAT is a vendor answering a questionnaire about their own product: which success criteria are supported. An Accessibility Conformance Report is that content written as a document. Section508.gov describes an ACR as an overview of Section 508 conformance, and contrasts it with a more detailed test report.
The difference that matters in a meeting is authorship. A VPAT or ACR is a claim by the seller. A test report is an evaluation by someone looking for problems. When evaluating a vendor, ask for both and compare them.
How to build one yourself
- Write the scope first. Choose the templates, content types and journeys to cover, and write down what is out of scope. Doing this first stops the scope drifting later.
- Fix the target. Name the standard and level, typically WCAG 2.2 Level AA, and note where a different regime applies. In the US, the Access Board’s final rule of 18 January 2017 updated the Section 508 requirements and harmonised them with WCAG 2.0. In the EU, W3C notes that the 2026 version of EN 301 549 uses WCAG 2.2.
- Pick a method. WCAG-EM 2.0, published as a W3C Group Note in July 2026, describes a step-by-step process for evaluating conformance to WCAG 2 across websites and apps. The ACT Rules Format 1.1 (February 2026) is the W3C standard for shared test rules.
- Run the automated pass. A crawler plus a rules engine across the scoped pages. Cheap and fast, and it gives you the baseline and per-criterion results table.
- Do the manual pass. Keyboard access, focus order and visible focus; link text that makes sense out of context; colour contrast; alternative text where needed; forms where each control has the right label. Screen-reader checks on key journeys.
- Write the findings. One entry per defect: page, criterion, user impact, steps, screenshot, severity, fix. Use the standard’s own wording, not a paraphrase that loses precision.
- Write the plan and schedule the retest. Order by user impact, name owners, agree a retest date before the report circulates. The statement goes on the site; findings stay internal unless needed.
Printable checklist: the structure of an accessibility report
Print this list and check the draft against it before the report leaves your hands.
- Product name, version and a one-line description
- Tester name, organisation, contact details and credentials
- Report date, date of evaluation, report version, date last modified
- Standard and level named explicitly (e.g. WCAG 2.2 AA)
- Scope: pages, templates, journeys and content types
- Exclusions stated, with the reason for each
- Test environments: operating system, browser, assistive technology
- Tools with versions; which checks were automated, which manual
- Conformance outcome for every success criterion
- Findings sorted by severity, with a defined scale
- Each finding: page, criterion, impact, steps, screenshot, fix
- Remediation plan with owners and ordering
- Items deliberately not fixed, and why
- Retest status and date for fixed and open findings
Who needs one
Public sector bodies. TheGOV.UK service manual requires an accessibility audit before a government service moves into public beta, and public sector bodies must meet WCAG 2.2 AA as a minimum. In the US, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to the electronic and information technology federal agencies develop, procure, maintain or use.
Procurement and suppliers. Section508.gov publishes guidance on soliciting and evaluating ACRs in federal ICT procurement, and on reading vendor claims in ACRs. If you are buying rather than selling, a written report tells you what was checked and what was not.
Clients who ask for one. Agencies and consultancies get asked to evidence accessibility work for their client. A report in a consistent structure saves the argument about scope later. Thewhite-label audit service produces this format if you would rather not test it yourself.
Your own organisation. Even where nobody requires a report, having one turns the remediation plan into something with owners and dates. The legal framework is covered in the EAA guide; ADA ramp rules are in theADA ramp requirements.
Frequently asked questions
Is an accessibility report the same as an accessibility statement?
No. A statement is a public page for visitors. A report is the evidence behind it, for developers and managers.
How is an accessibility report different from a VPAT or an ACR?
A VPAT is a vendor’s self-disclosure questionnaire; an ACR is that disclosure in document form. A test report is different: it records what was tested, how, and what failed, with evidence.
Do automated scanners on their own produce a valid accessibility report?
No. Automated tools catch only the pattern-matchable share of WCAG problems. GOV.UK is direct: you will miss issues if you only automate.
How many pages should an accessibility report cover?
Not all of them, and the report must say which were left out. GOV.UK advises a sample of templates, key features and common user journeys.
What severity levels should findings use?
Pick a small scale such as critical, high, medium and low; define what each level means once, then apply it consistently across findings.
How long should an accessibility report be?
Long enough to reproduce every finding, short enough that someone reads it. Each needs a page reference, the criterion, user impact, steps, a screenshot and a fix.
Need the public-facing half? An accessibility statement is the shorter document most sites need first. Thefree statement generator produces one in the W3C structure, and the FAQ page covers common wording questions.
Sources consulted 22 October 2026: theW3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WCAG 2 overview and statement guidance); Section508.gov (test report elements and conformance reports); the GOV.UK Service Manual (audits and testing). Standards change, so read the current text first.