Accessibility review mapped to success criteria
Every finding tied to the exact WCAG success criterion it relates to — so your fixes are defensible and your audit trail is clear.
When accessibility comes up in a contract, a lawsuit, or a procurement review, "we tried to be accessible" is not enough. You need to show which criteria you checked and what you found — a defensible, criterion-by-criterion record.
This tool produces findings already mapped to specific WCAG success criteria, with impact and fixes, so your review reads like an audit rather than an opinion. It is a heuristic draft to confirm with testing, but it gives you the structure auditors and procurement expect.
The tool for this
♿Accessibility (WCAG) Check
Heuristic WCAG 2.2 review — likely issues, the success criterion, impact and fixes.
Frequently asked questions
Why map findings to success criteria? +
It makes the review defensible and trackable — you can show exactly which WCAG criteria were checked and what each finding relates to.
Is this enough for legal compliance? +
It is a structured first pass. Legal compliance generally requires verification with assistive technology and, often, a formal audit.
What level does it target? +
It focuses on the widely-referenced AA criteria, the common target for compliance.
Related tools
♿Accessibility (WCAG) Check
Heuristic WCAG 2.2 review — likely issues, the success criterion, impact and fixes.
🔍Usability Audit
Heuristic audit against Nielsen's 10 — each finding with a heuristic, severity and fix.
📐Design Handoff Spec
Turn a screen description into a developer-ready handoff spec — spacing, type, states, a11y.
Browse the full tools directory, or see all Panshi services.