Why Manual Testing Equals Smarter Automation

If you’re searching for a reliable way to achieve digital accessibility compliance, chances are you’ve come across a wide range of tools and testing methods. And while the options may vary, most fall into two categories: automated testing or manual audits. 

Automation-only tools are popular for good reason — they’re fast, easy to run, and promise to surface accessibility issues without requiring much human involvement. On the other hand, others may prefer manual audits, which typically involve accessibility experts going through each line of website code line by line. While thorough, these audits can be time-consuming and expensive, and often leave teams with a long list of accessibility fixes to make. 

At AudioEye, we believe the most effective solution isn’t one or the other — it’s both.

Automation is essential for keeping up with the size and speed of the modern web. But automation alone has limits. It can’t interpret context the way people can, and it often misses the real-world usability issues that impact people with disabilities the most. 

Below, we’ll explain why automation is necessary to help solve digital accessibility at scale — and make a case for why it works best when backed by human experts. 

What are Automated Web Accessibility Testing Solutions?

To understand how manual testing makes automation smarter, you need to know what automated accessibility testing and tools are. 

Automated accessibility testing refers to accessibility tools crawling a website’s underlying code and existing content to identify accessibility issues that violate standards like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). For example, tools can quickly flag problems like missing alt text, poor color contrast, and improper heading structures. Some solutions offer recommendations for fixing the issues or fix them automatically.

One of the biggest benefits of automated accessibility is its speed and scale. These tools can easily scan hundreds of pages in minutes, making them ideal for large or constantly changing websites. Some also offer ongoing monitoring, alerting teams when new issues are introduced after a code update or content change.

While automation is a powerful starting point, it’s not a complete solution.

Why Automation Alone Isn’t Enough

Automated tools are ideal for identifying surface-level issues. Where they fall short is in identifying real-world accessibility issues that impact how people actually experience your site.

One common challenge: False positives. This happens when a tool flags an issue that isn’t actually a problem, wasting time, overwhelming your team, and making it harder to identify what needs fixing. On the other side, automation can also miss critical accessibility issues entirely, especially those that affect usability — like broken keyboard navigation, confusing focus order, or content that doesn’t make sense when read aloud by a screen reader.

The core issue is that automation lacks context. It can’t interpret meaning, intent, or user behavior. For example, it might check whether a button has a label or if an image has alt text, but it can’t tell you if those labels or descriptions make sense in context. And it definitely can’t judge whether your site is usable by someone with a disability or if it meets accessibility compliance standards. Left unchecked, this lack of context can negatively impact the user experience, not just for people with disabilities, but for all users. 

That’s where human insight comes in — to bridge the gap between technical compliance and real accessibility.

A stylized web page, with an icon of a human on the left side and a magnifying glass with an accessibility symbol on the right side.

Human Input = Smarter Tools

As the name suggests, manual testing involves real people — often accessibility experts or members of the disability community — evaluating a website or other digital content to identify accessibility issues that automated tools can’t catch. This can include tasks like navigating with a keyboard or screen reader, reviewing content for clarity and context, and checking that interactive elements work the way they should for all users. 

Manual testing plays a critical role in validating the results of automated scans. It helps confirm whether flagged issues are problems; more importantly, it surfaces accessibility barriers that automation completely misses. Think: inaccessible forms, unclear button labels, or carousels that move too quickly or can’t be paused. 

The value of manual testing goes beyond just fixing individual issues — it improves automation. By feeding human insight into automated systems, you can fine-tune your tools to reduce false positives, expand test coverage, and build smarter, more context-aware automation over time.

The Power of Hybrid Accessibility Solutions

When used together, automation and manual testing create a more accurate, effective, and scalable approach to digital accessibility. To illustrate this, let’s look at how AudioEye uses both approaches to detect and fix accessibility issues. 

1. Initial Scan

Our Web Accessibility Checker performs an automated scan of your digital content, detecting common accessibility issues like missing alt text or improper heading structure. Automated Fixes then automatically resolve those issues.

2. Expert Test

After the initial automated scan, a developer fixes any issues that could not be automatically fixed. Accessibility testers also review digital content using a screen reader and keyboard navigation to identify additional accessibility issues. 

3. Fixes

Any additional issues found by accessibility testers are fixed by developers, who then return the problem to the tester to be retested. The second step is repeated each time a remediation round is completed.

4. Last Pass

Before changes are published, a developer checks the site to confirm everything is working as expected. Because AudioEye uses native software, we can code custom remediations into our automated solution. As a bonus, this process often reveals patterns that can be turned into automated solutions deployed across all customer websites. 

It’s that last part — the ability to turn custom fixes into default automations — that makes manual testing so important. It’s not just about spot fixes or applying human judgment to something subjective like alt text; it’s about informing smarter automation over time.

Automation is Here to Stay, But People Aren’t Going Anywhere

Automation continues to improve — but it isn’t ready to operate without people. Real accessibility isn’t about just checking boxes; it’s about creating digital experiences that actually work for everyone. That requires human judgment. Whether it’s reviewing alt text for clarity and content or ensuring captions align with on-screen content, people are still essential for catching the issues that automation alone can’t detect.

When automation is informed and validated by human expertise, it becomes more accurate, more effective, and ultimately more scalable. That’s why AudioEye takes a hybrid approach to accessibility, combining automation and human-assisted AI technology to detect and fix digital accessibility issues. With AudioEye’s comprehensive approach, you save time and up to 90% in costs compared to automation or consulting-only approaches. 

Want to see how accessible your site is — and how much automation might be missing? Scan your digital content with our free Web Accessibility Checker. Or schedule a demo to see AudioEye’s hybrid approach to accessibility in action.