WCAG 2.1 & ADA Accessibility Checker

WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA — the technical standard referenced by the ADA in US litigation, by Section 508 for federal procurement, and by EN 301 549 in the EU. Each finding names the exact success criterion it fails, such as 1.1.1 Non-text Content or 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions.

No, and any tool that claims otherwise is misleading you. Automated testing can verify roughly a third of WCAG 2.1 AA criteria. The rest — real colour contrast, keyboard focus order, screen-reader flow, caption accuracy — need a human. This scan removes the most common and most litigated barriers, and the report ends with a manual review checklist covering what is left.

Thousands of ADA Title III web complaints are filed in the US every year, and the overwhelming majority cite the same handful of failures: missing image alt text, unlabeled form fields, empty links and buttons, and keyboard-inaccessible menus. Those are exactly the checks in this report, so fixing them removes the easiest grounds for a demand letter.

You need it as an accommodation layer, and this scan now checks for it. A widget gives visitors on-page controls — text resizing, high-contrast, inverted and monochrome colour modes, a dyslexia-friendly font, link highlighting, text spacing, a reading guide, a big cursor and keyboard navigation help. If no widget or equivalent native control is found, the report flags it as a serious finding and caps your score, because users with low vision, dyslexia or colour-blindness have no way to adapt the page. eSearchLogix installs and configures a widget across your site for a one-time $100 USD.

No. A widget improves usability and shows good faith, but conformance lives in the code: alt text, labels, semantic structure, keyboard operability, focus visibility and real colour contrast. Use the widget as the fast win, then have the underlying markup remediated. Our team does that manually — audit with screen readers, then optimize templates, CSS, components and every interactive element — and hands you a conformance report.

Because we grade strictly. Critical and serious failures apply hard score ceilings rather than being averaged away by passing checks, occurrence counts increase the penalty, and a missing accessibility widget or missing user-adjustment controls caps the score too. A page with real barriers should not read as "nearly compliant" — that false comfort is exactly what leads to demand letters.

No. It scans the single URL you submit. Most people start with the homepage, then run key templates — a product page, a blog post, the contact form, and checkout — since each template usually shares the same underlying issues.

Real contrast depends on the fully rendered page: computed CSS, background images behind text, hover and focus states, and theme variables. A static HTML scan cannot resolve those. We flag risky inline colour declarations and list contrast as a manual-review item rather than reporting a number we cannot stand behind.

Yes, substantially. Semantic headings, descriptive link text, image alt attributes, language declarations, and proper landmarks are all things crawlers and AI answer engines rely on to understand a page. Accessible markup is machine-readable markup — which is why we treat this scan as a companion to our SEO and GEO tools.