If you are responsible for fixing accessibility issues, the audit report format matters.
A vague report creates vague tickets. A strong report gives developers enough detail to reproduce the issue, understand the expected behavior, fix it, and retest it.
What should be in the report?
At minimum:
- Scope.
- Standards.
- Methodology.
- Test environment.
- Findings.
- Evidence.
- Remediation guidance.
- Retest status.
This gives engineering teams context.
What should each finding include?
Treat each finding like a production defect.
A useful accessibility issue includes:
- URL or app screen.
- Component or workflow.
- Steps to reproduce.
- Expected behavior.
- Actual behavior.
- User impact.
- WCAG criterion.
- Severity.
- Fix recommendation.
- Retest result.
If a developer cannot reproduce the issue, the finding is incomplete.
Why screenshots are not enough
Screenshots help, but they do not always explain behavior.
For keyboard, screen reader, focus, form, and dynamic update issues, evidence may need steps, recordings, assistive technology notes, selectors, or state descriptions.
Report reusable component issues clearly
Many accessibility failures live in shared components.
If the same modal, menu, input, date picker, or alert appears across the product, the report should identify the pattern so teams can fix it once at source.
Retest before closure
A code change is not proof that a barrier is gone.
Retesting should confirm the user journey now works and should document the result.
Conclusion
The best WCAG audit reports are remediation-ready.
They turn accessibility barriers into clear, reproducible, standards-mapped work.
Read the original guide on IAAP Audit: https://iaapaudit.com/blog/accessibility-audit-report-format-websites-web-apps
![[academic] Survey: Developers’ Accessibility Practices](https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=1200,height=627,fit=cover,gravity=auto,format=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Flhr81ax0mtnovd46wnui.png)
