Preparing an accessibility report starts with pulling the right data from your audit findings, scan history, and issue tracker, then translating that data into a document your team, leadership, or clients can act on. A strong report pairs audit data (which identifies conformance issues) with scan analytics (which flag approximately 25% of issues but show trend lines over time). The output is a clean picture of where your digital asset stands against WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA, what has been fixed, and what remains.
The report itself is not the work. The work is the audit, the remediation, and the validation. The report organizes that activity into something readable.
| Data Source | What It Shows |
|---|---|
| Audit report | WCAG conformance status at the success criterion level, issue severity, and remediation guidance |
| Automated scan data | Trend data across pages over time, flags approximately 25% of issues |
| Issue tracking platform | Open vs. closed issues, assignment, validation status, timestamps |
| User evaluation results | Real-world impact on people using assistive technology |
| Remediation logs | What was fixed, when, and by whom |
Start with the audit as your foundation
Analytics data without a (manual) accessibility audit is incomplete. The audit identifies conformance status against each WCAG success criterion. Scan data, tracker metrics, and user feedback all layer onto that foundation.
Pull the audit report and confirm the standard evaluated (WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA), the scope (pages, screens, or components reviewed), and the date of the evaluation. These three data points frame every number that follows.
What metrics belong in an accessibility report?
The metrics depend on the audience. A report for an engineering lead looks different from a report for a chief compliance officer. The underlying data is the same. The framing changes.
Core metrics worth including:
Total issues identified by severity (critical, serious, moderate, minor). Issues by WCAG success criterion, so patterns become visible. Open vs. closed status, pulled directly from your tracking platform. Validation rate, meaning how many closed issues have been verified as fixed. Scan trend data, showing whether automated detection counts are moving in the right direction over weeks or months. Remediation velocity, how many issues are being closed per sprint or per week.
How to pull analytics from a tracking platform
Modern tracking platforms export data directly. The Accessibility Tracker Platform, for example, produces progress reports that map open and closed issues to WCAG criteria and severity ratings. That export becomes the analytics backbone of your report.
If you are using a spreadsheet instead, the same logic applies. Each row represents an issue. Columns capture severity, criterion, status, owner, and validation date. Pivot tables do the rest.
What matters is consistency. The same fields tracked the same way across weeks gives you the trend lines leadership actually reads.
How to combine audit findings with scan data
Audits and scans answer different questions. The audit answers: does this digital asset conform to WCAG 2.1 AA. The scan answers: are automated-detectable issues trending up or down across the site.
Keep them separate in the report. A section for audit results (conformance status, issue list, severity breakdown) and a section for scan analytics (trend charts, page-level counts, detection over time). Combining them into one number confuses readers and misrepresents what each method can show.
Scans detect approximately 25% of issues. State that plainly in the report so no reader mistakes a low scan count for WCAG conformance.
Structuring the report for decision-makers
A report that travels well has five parts:
- Executive summary with conformance status and top findings
- Scope and methodology (what was evaluated, against what standard, when)
- Issue analytics (severity breakdown, criterion breakdown, open vs. closed)
- Progress data (scan trends, remediation velocity, validation rate)
- Next steps with Risk Factor or User Impact prioritization formulas applied
Leadership reads the first page. Engineers read sections three and five. Legal reads sections two and three. Build the report so each reader finds what they need without hunting.
The Accessible.org Accessibility Tracker Platform generates this structure automatically from audit data and ongoing tracking, which removes the copy-paste step most teams lose hours to.
Showing progress over time
A single report is a snapshot. A series of reports is a story. If you are reporting monthly or quarterly, use the same metrics and the same visualizations every time. Variation in format hides variation in the numbers.
Leadership wants to see three lines moving the right direction: open issues down, validation rate up, scan-detected issues down. Everything else is context.
When to include user evaluation data
User evaluation with people who rely on assistive technology adds weight no scan or audit can deliver. Include user evaluation findings when they exist, and present them alongside the related WCAG criteria. A full services approach pairs audit data with lived experience, and that combination reads stronger in a report than analytics alone.
How AI is changing accessibility reporting
Accessible.org Labs is actively researching how AI can make auditing and remediation workflows more efficient, including how AI can help generate clearer reports from audit data. The goal is real AI that supports skilled practitioners, not AI that claims to replace them. A report still reflects human judgment about severity, impact, and priority. AI helps the practitioner move faster through the document preparation itself.
How often should you prepare an accessibility report?
Monthly reports work for active remediation projects. Quarterly reports work for maintenance phases after a WCAG audit is complete and most issues are closed. Annual reports are too infrequent for anything but the highest-level executive view.
Can you prepare an accessibility report using only scan data?
No. Scans flag approximately 25% of issues and cannot determine WCAG conformance. A report built only on scan data misrepresents the state of the digital asset. Audit data is required to make any conformance claim.
What format should the final report be in?
PDF for external distribution, a live dashboard for internal teams. PDFs preserve the snapshot. Dashboards show current state. Most teams produce both from the same underlying data.
Should the report reference a specific WCAG version?
Yes. Name the standard evaluated (WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA) on the first page. Every criterion referenced throughout the report maps back to that standard.
A report is only as useful as the data feeding it. Clean audit findings, consistent tracker fields, and trend-ready scan exports produce a document that holds up to scrutiny from legal, engineering, and leadership on the same read.
Contact Accessible.org to discuss audit and reporting support: Contact our team.
