The momentum in the digital accessibility industry is really starting to build, but along with that growth is change. The market is evolving and becoming more informed. This means some of the legacy tactics of past years will begin to vanish with a big 2026 in store.
| Trend | What It Means for You |
|---|---|
| More User Testing | Organizations want to verify that fixes work for real users, not just meet technical standards |
| WCAG 2.2 AA Standard | New audits increasingly use WCAG 2.2 AA instead of 2.1 AA as the baseline |
| Audit-Based Platforms | Teams prefer platforms that track real audit findings over automated scan results |
| Real AI Efficiency | AI tools that speed up remediation work are replacing claims of “AI-powered” automated accessibility |
| Enterprise Pricing Shifts | Traditional vendors face challenges maintaining $20,000 minimums as alternatives emerge |
Table of Contents
Increased Demand for User Testing Services
More organizations are starting to see the extreme value in user testing.
User testing provides tangible evidence of accessibility that beautifully complements the foundation of audit + remediation + validation. When you not only have undeniable proof that your digital asset is WCAG conformant, but also has been thoroughly tested, you suddenly start to melt away any claims to the contrary.
We’re already seeing an increase in user testing orders and we’ll see a lot more in 2026.
Edging Toward WCAG 2.2 AA
WCAG 2.2 AA might end up creating a presumption of conformity for European Accessibility Act (EAA) compliance. Yes, we might see an update to EN 301 549 that incorporates 2.2 AA. If we see that, bananas will explode out of the trees and fall all around WCAG 2.2 AA.
The European Accessibility Act influences isn’t the only pressure cooker here. We’re seeing more plaintiffs’ lawyers cite to the WCAG 2.2 AA standard in complaints. This is completely unfair to website owners (it’s a higher standard than the DOJ even requires under the ADA Title II web rule), but it’s happening.
Audit-Based Platforms Roar Past Scan-Based
The market is listening and shifting from scan-based platforms to audit-based systems. More and more project managers are starting to awaken to the fact that tracking automated scan results ends them at a dead end to getting an audit and starting all over again — and they could have got the audit to begin with.
Here’s the problem: scans are extremely limited. They only reliably flag 13% of WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria. So why is anybody focused on a 100% scan score?
Audit-based platforms like Accessibility Tracker work differently. You upload an actual audit report from a technical accessibility expert who evaluated your digital asset. Now when you fix issues, you can measure accurate progress towards full WCAG conformance.
This shift changes everything about project management. When you see 50% completion in an audit-based system, you know you’re halfway to conformance. When executives ask about compliance status, you have accurate data. When legal asks for documentation, you’re tracking expert findings, not automated guesses.
The difference matters most during remediation. Project managers know their dashboards reflect reality.
Real AI Tramples “Automated” Solutions
Artificial intelligence is capable of creating amazing efficiency so why are so many digital accessibility companies still stuck on lying about automated remediation?
Real AI is already here and it’s making a big impact. We’ve gone from constantly needing to consult the Mozilla Developer Network and needing more technical support hours to the point where developers can get more issues resolved the first time around.
AI doesn’t fix accessibility issues automatically. It helps humans fix them faster. Developers still write the code. Designers still update interfaces. AI just makes their work more efficient by providing immediate, contextual guidance.
Enterprise Vendors Face Pricing Pressure
The $15,000 to $20,000 minimum for enterprise accessibility services will be especially hard to maintain as new and forward thinking digital accessibility companies like Accessible.org gain traction in the marketplace.
As more clients start to realize the enterprise companies aren’t able to justify their premium pricing, we expect an exodus away from the forced all-in service package model. Those clients will be seeking leaner services that align with exactly what they’re looking for.
Insights
Here are the 5 trends that will start to rock the boats and crash the shore in 2026:
- User testing becomes Accessible.org’s third most popular service
- WCAG 2.2 AA becomes Accessible.org’s most requested standard
- Audit-based platforms like Accessibility Tracker become widely adopted
- Real AI is realized for efficiency gains, “AI-powered” widgets / solutions are disregarded
- Legacy companies have difficulty maintaining $20,000 price floor
The accessibility market in 2026 will reward organizations that focus on real results: digital assets that work for users with disabilities, accurate compliance documentation, and efficient remediation processes. These trends point the way forward.
FAQ
Why are more organizations ordering user testing services?
User testing provides demonstrable evidence of accessibility.
Will a WCAG 2.1 AA Audit Still Work?
Absolutely. WCAG 2.1 AA still provides for an excellent level of accessibility.
What’s the difference between scan-based and audit-based platforms?
Scan-based platforms track automated scan results that are extremely limited. Audit-based platforms track findings from manual expert audits that identify all accessibility issues. This means audit-based platforms provide accurate progress metrics while scan-based tools give incomplete pictures of your actual conformance status.
How does AI actually help with accessibility remediation?
AI provides immediate guidance when teams encounter unfamiliar issues. It translates technical requirements into plain language, provides code examples, suggests alternative fixes, and answers questions about specific audit findings. This reduces time spent researching issues and cuts technical support costs while keeping humans in control of actual fixes.
Why are enterprise accessibility services facing so much pressure?
Their existing client base has seen what they have to offer and they’re starting to realize there isn’t anything magical behind the curtain.
