Skip to content
Asuruas
Methodology

Accessibility evaluation methodology

Asuruas organizes automated and manual accessibility work around the current WCAG 2 family without presenting an automated scan as proof of conformance.

Start reading
Methodology

Accessibility evaluation

State authorization, scope, method, evidence type, limitations, interpretation rules, and the verification required before closure.

Primary topicAccessibility evaluation

Asuruas organizes automated and manual accessibility work around the current WCAG 2 family without presenting an automated scan as proof of conformance.

Operating outcomeAccountable improvement

Remove barriers from important user tasks and make accessibility part of routine website operations.

Review statusMaintained resource

Reviewed for accuracy, clarity, and operational use.

01

Standards context

W3C encourages use of the latest WCAG 2 version. WCAG 2.2 is organized under perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust principles, with testable success criteria at A, AA, and AAA levels.

02

Evaluation layers

  • Automated rules
  • keyboard review
  • screen-reader review
  • zoom and reflow
  • color and non-color meaning
  • forms and errors
  • authentication
  • content and instructions
  • task completion
03

Claim discipline

A scan can identify failures and areas requiring review. A conformance claim requires evaluation of the applicable success criteria across the defined scope and remains the responsibility of the party making the claim.

04

Evidence standard

  • State the authorization, scope, exclusions, environment, timing, and methodology version for accessibility evaluation.
  • Automated findings separated from issues requiring manual human evaluation.
  • Distinguish direct observation, calculated result, heuristic, inference, and manual judgment.
  • Preserve failed, incomplete, blocked, and uncertain checks instead of silently dropping them.
05

Interpretation and decision record

A methodology should help reviewers reach the same bounded conclusion from the same evidence. It should not imply certainty beyond the assessed scope. Record the finding, limitation, owner, decision, remediation, and the verification required to remove barriers from important user tasks and make accessibility part of routine website operations.

06

Implementation note for Accessibility evaluation

Apply this guidance to the actual website and operating context. For accessibility evaluation, preserve the source condition, affected scope, assumptions, responsible owner, implementation reference, and result so another reviewer can reproduce the decision.

The page is intended for customers, administrators, reviewers, and procurement teams. It supports a bounded decision, not a universal guarantee. Reassess the guidance when the website architecture, content, technology, contract, audience, or external requirements materially change.

  • Define what successful accessibility evaluation means before implementation begins.
  • Link the work to a ticket, release, approval, or retained project record.
  • Schedule a follow-up check instead of assuming the condition will remain correct indefinitely.
Next useful action

Turn accessibility evaluation into an accountable record.

A reproducible accessibility evaluation assessment record with scope, evidence, limitations, and verification rules.