Site Punchlist

Reference

What an automated scanner can and cannot check

Every accessibility vendor is asked how much their tool covers, and most answer with a percentage and no method. This page shows the working.

55 WCAG 2.2 success criteria at Level A and AA
23 have at least one automated rule
32 have none, and need a person

How these numbers were produced

Two machine-readable sources, crossed against each other, regenerated whenever the engine is upgraded:

  • The list of success criteria comes from W3C's own WCAG 2.2 data file — 31 at Level A, 24 at Level AA, 87 including AAA, which we exclude because almost nobody is asked to meet it.
  • The rule list comes from the metadata inside axe-core 4.13.0, the engine we run: 70 rules carrying a WCAG tag.

Generated Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:51:17 GMT. One rule tag (2.1.3) points at Level AAA criteria, and is excluded from the count above.

"Has a rule" is not "is covered"

A criterion having an automated rule does not mean every way of failing it can be detected. 1.1.1 Non-text Content has rules that catch a missing alt attribute; nothing can tell you the alt text says “image123” when the picture is a pricing table. Read the table below as where a machine can help, never as a score.

A worked example of the gap

Here are four text inputs. Three of them are a problem for somebody. Only one is reported by any automated rule.

Tested against axe-core 4.13.0 on 25 August 2026

<input type="text" placeholder="Your name">   ← passes
<input type="text">                            ← flagged: rule "label"
<input type="text" title="Phone">              ← flagged, but only as best practice
<input type="text" aria-label="City">          ← passes, correctly

The first one passes because a placeholder can supply an accessible name, so the rule's condition is satisfied. But a placeholder disappears the moment somebody starts typing, several screen readers do not announce it, and its default styling rarely reaches 4.5:1. It is one of the most common real defects on the web, and a scan will tell you your form is fine.

This is what the table below cannot show you, and it is the reason we say findings rather than conformance.

The 32 criteria with no automated rule at all

This is the honest half of the picture. Nothing in this list is checked by any scan, ours included.

WCAG 2.2 A and AA criteria with no automated rule
CriterionName LevelRulesRule ids
1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) A
1.2.4 Captions (Live) AA
1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded) AA
1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence A
1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics A
1.4.5 Images of Text AA
1.4.10 Reflow AA
1.4.11 Non-text Contrast AA
1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus AA
2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap A
2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts A
2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold A
2.4.3 Focus Order A
2.4.5 Multiple Ways AA
2.4.6 Headings and Labels AA
2.4.7 Focus Visible AA
2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) AA
2.5.1 Pointer Gestures A
2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation A
2.5.4 Motion Actuation A
2.5.7 Dragging Movements AA
3.2.1 On Focus A
3.2.2 On Input A
3.2.3 Consistent Navigation AA
3.2.4 Consistent Identification AA
3.2.6 Consistent Help A
3.3.1 Error Identification A
3.3.3 Error Suggestion AA
3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data) AA
3.3.7 Redundant Entry A
3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) AA
4.1.3 Status Messages AA

Notice what is in there. Whether a keyboard can escape a dialog. Whether focus moves in an order that makes sense. Whether the focus indicator is visible. Whether an error message tells you what to do. Whether the navigation is in the same place on every page. These are among the defects that stop people using a site altogether, and no scanner finds them.

That is why we sell findings and a dated testing record, and why nothing we produce says “compliant”.

The 23 criteria a scan can reach

WCAG 2.2 A and AA criteria with automated rules
CriterionName LevelRulesRule ids
1.1.1 Non-text Content A 7 aria-meter-name, aria-progressbar-name, image-alt, input-image-alt +3
1.2.1 Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded) A 1 audio-caption
1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded) A 1 video-caption
1.3.1 Info and Relationships A 12 aria-hidden-body, aria-required-children, aria-required-parent, definition-list +8
1.3.4 Orientation AA 1 css-orientation-lock
1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose AA 1 autocomplete-valid
1.4.1 Use of Color A 1 link-in-text-block
1.4.2 Audio Control A 1 no-autoplay-audio
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) AA 1 color-contrast
1.4.4 Resize Text AA 1 meta-viewport
1.4.12 Text Spacing AA 1 avoid-inline-spacing
2.1.1 Keyboard A 3 frame-focusable-content, scrollable-region-focusable, server-side-image-map
2.2.1 Timing Adjustable A 1 meta-refresh
2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide A 2 blink, marquee
2.4.1 Bypass Blocks A 1 bypass
2.4.2 Page Titled A 1 document-title
2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) A 2 area-alt, link-name
2.5.3 Label in Name A 1 label-content-name-mismatch
2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) AA 1 target-size
3.1.1 Language of Page A 3 html-has-lang, html-lang-valid, html-xml-lang-mismatch
3.1.2 Language of Parts AA 1 valid-lang
3.3.2 Labels or Instructions A 1 form-field-multiple-labels
4.1.2 Name, Role, Value A 29 area-alt, aria-allowed-attr, aria-braille-equivalent, aria-command-name +25

What about the “57%” figure?

Two published figures get quoted in this market, and they measure different things:

  • Deque, who publish axe-core, state it finds on average 57% of the WCAG issues in a first-time audit. That is a share of issue volume — and volume is dominated by the repetitive defects machines are good at.
  • Evinced published a study in January 2026 running engines against 35 manual audits by consultants, and reported axe-core alone found 22.6% of the issues those consultants recorded.

Both come from vendors with something to gain. Neither is the same measurement as the table above, which counts criteria rather than issues. We quote the range and the sources rather than picking whichever number flatters us.

Run a free single-page scan