Protocol
Include the people whose access needs your tests miss
An accessibility score is not a person completing the task.
When it fits
- An interface passes automated checks but some people still cannot use it.
When to avoid it
- Do not ask people to simulate a disability as a replacement for involving users. Participation must be accessible and voluntary.
Why it matters
Include participants with relevant disabilities and assistive technologies in realistic task evaluation. Ask about their usual setup and access needs before the session. Combine their findings with standards-based checks instead of making either stand for the other.
Steps
- Recruit across the relevant needs rather than treating one participant as representative of everyone.
- Support the participant’s familiar tools and agreed accommodations.
- Record barriers, successful workarounds and untested combinations explicitly.
An example
A keyboard check passes, but a screen-reader user cannot tell whether a recording has finished processing.
Check your result
Can the team connect each finding to a task, setup and observed barrier, while stating what was not tested?
Keep this limit in mind
- Do not ask people to simulate a disability as a replacement for involving users. Participation must be accessible and voluntary.
Connected ideas
Useful withAnnounce the result without stealing the user’s placeUseful with
Give the user a goal and keep your instructions out of the result
Evidence and sources
Supports
W3C recommends involving users with disabilities alongside standards-based accessibility evaluation.
Neither a small user sample nor an automated scan certifies complete accessibility.
Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility · Combining user involvement with conformance evaluation.