Enterprise accessibility audits are only valuable if findings are clearly documented, actionable, and prioritized. A poorly structured report can leave development teams confused, compliance officers frustrated, and clients dissatisfied.
This guide explains the ideal accessibility audit report structure, how to prioritize findings, and how to make reports both comprehensive and practical for enterprise and agency workflows.
Why a Structured Accessibility Audit Report Matters
Accessibility audits generate dozens, sometimes hundreds, of findings. Without structure, reports become:
- Overwhelming for development teams
- Difficult for executives to interpret
- Legally weaker in case of compliance reviews
A proper audit report ensures:
- Transparency
- Clear remediation instructions
- Prioritized workflow for developers
- Alignment with WCAG, ADA, and Section 508 standards
- Strong EEAT credibility
Reference: WCAG Understanding Docs
Core Components of an Accessibility Audit Report
A high-quality accessibility audit report should include the following sections:
1. Executive Summary
- High-level overview of website accessibility status
- Key metrics (number of issues, compliance percentage)
- Critical violations highlighted
- Strategic recommendations
Purpose: Allow non-technical executives to grasp the accessibility risk immediately.
2. Audit Scope and Methodology
- Pages, templates, or modules tested
- Standards used (WCAG 2.1 Level AA, ADA, Section 508)
- Tools employed (automated and manual)
- Manual testing scope (keyboard navigation, screen reader testing)
Purpose: Clarifies what was tested and how, protecting both agencies and clients legally.
3. Issue Listing / Findings Table
The main section should be a structured, sortable table, including:
| Issue ID | WCAG Reference | Severity | Description | Location | Screenshot | Remediation Recommendation | Status |
|---|
Key Points:
- Include WCAG reference numbers to show EEAT and compliance authority.
- Include screenshots or video evidence for clarity.
- Use clear, actionable language “Add alt text to image” is better than “Image missing alt attribute.”
4. Prioritization Framework
Not all accessibility issues are equal. Reports should prioritize issues to guide development effectively.
Severity Levels
- Critical / P1: Blocks users completely (e.g., keyboard trap, missing form labels in checkout)
- Major / P2: Hinders accessibility, but workarounds exist (e.g., low color contrast, missing heading in section)
- Minor / P3: Cosmetic or low-impact issues (e.g., decorative images missing alt, ARIA warnings)
Criteria for Prioritization
- User impact (screen reader users, keyboard-only users, cognitive disabilities)
- Legal risk (WCAG/ADA violation potential)
- Frequency (how many pages/components are affected)
- Effort to remediate vs benefit
Reference: Deque Prioritization Guide
5. Visual Evidence
Screenshots or screen recordings:
- Highlight exactly where the issue occurs
- Include captions explaining the violation
- Optionally, annotate fixes
Visual documentation helps developers implement fixes faster and supports audit transparency.
6. Remediation Recommendations
Each finding should include clear guidance:
- Exact code fix (if possible)
- WCAG reference
- Best practices
- Tool references (e.g., “Use WAVE contrast checker”)
For example:
- Issue: Button missing accessible name
- Recommendation: Add aria-label or descriptive text for screen readers
- WCAG Reference: 4.1.2 – Name, Role, Value
7. Compliance Summary / Dashboard
For enterprises and clients:
- Summary of issues by severity level
- Percentage of pages compliant
- Trend graphs for remediation progress
- High-risk areas flagged
Report Prioritization Workflow for Agencies and Teams
A repeatable workflow ensures audits are effective:
- Automated Scan: Detects obvious issues quickly
- Manual Testing: Screens real user flows for accessibility
- Document Findings: Structured table with WCAG references
- Assign Severity: P1, P2, P3 based on impact
- Recommend Fixes: Developer-friendly instructions
- Re-Test: Validate remediations
- Executive Dashboard: Summarize for leadership
Common Mistakes in Accessibility Audit Reporting
- Not including WCAG references
- Overloading the report with minor issues first
- Using vague or technical jargon
- Omitting screenshots or visual evidence
- Failing to provide actionable remediation steps
- Not tracking remediation progress
Avoiding these mistakes strengthens EEAT’s credibility and ensures real impact.
SEO and EEAT Benefits of Structured Audit Reports
- Reports link to WCAG and ADA guidelines → establishes authority
- Clear remediation improves user experience, impacting SEO indirectly
- Clients and agencies can publish summaries, demonstrating trustworthiness
- Structured reports are easier to turn into case studies, whitepapers, and blog posts
Reference: Google Lighthouse & Accessibility Impact
Optional Additions for Enterprise-Level Reporting
- Executive Risk Score: Weighted metric combining severity and legal risk
- Template-Based Reporting: Use a standard report format for all websites
- Client-Facing Summary: Non-technical overview highlighting key wins and risks
- Trend Tracking: Month-over-month compliance graphs
Final Thoughts
A professional accessibility audit report is not just a compliance artifact it’s a communication tool:
- Clear structure → improves developer adoption
- Prioritization → ensures high-impact issues are fixed first
- Documentation → supports legal protection and EEAT credibility
The ideal approach combines technical detail, visual clarity, and an executive summary.
For agencies and enterprises, this means:
✔ Faster remediation cycles
✔ Reduced legal risk
✔ Stronger client trust
✔ Scalable accessibility programs
