A fresh audit of Europe’s most-visited websites shows that 64 % of them fail the Name, Role, and Value criterion, a Level A requirement that has been mandatory since 2008. The failure rate matters because Level A is the legal floor for web accessibility across the EU, and non-compliance can expose companies to enforcement actions even before the next WCAG 2.2 update arrives in November 2026.

Why the audit matters

Businesses are already buying checklists and budgeting for the new WCAG 2.2 criteria, but the audit reveals they are overlooking the rules that already exist. Two-thirds of the continent’s biggest sites sit on the wrong side of the law, exposing a gap between intent and execution.

What the audit found

The audit examined the top-traffic sites across the European Union and matched each page against the current standard. The most common failures fell into four buckets:

  • Name, Role, and Value – 64 % of sites omitted a text alternative for interactive elements such as icon-only buttons. A search magnifier or shopping cart without an accessible label leaves screen-reader users clueless about the control’s purpose.
  • Contrast – 44 % of sites failed the minimum colour-contrast ratio, making text hard to read for users with low vision.
  • Link Purpose – 36 % of sites presented links whose purpose could not be determined from the link text alone, a barrier for anyone navigating with assistive technology.
  • Target Size – 34 % of sites offered touch targets smaller than the recommended size, increasing the risk of missed taps on mobile devices.

These issues are not deep architectural flaws; they are often a missing HTML attribute or a style that fails a simple visual check.

Why big sites lag behind

The audit also compared large, high-traffic sites with smaller, less-visited ones. The former failed the Level A rules roughly three times more often. The likely culprits are:

  • Third-party widgets that ship with their own accessibility bugs.
  • Legacy codebases that have accumulated ad-hoc fixes over years, making systematic remediation harder.
  • Higher complexity that introduces more points of failure, from dynamic menus to custom form controls.

Scale amplifies the risk of overlooking basic accessibility details.

Automation isn’t enough

Many organisations rely on automated scanners to certify compliance. The audit warns that such tools only catch about 30 %–40 % of the actual failures. Human judgment is needed for the rest—confirming that a sticky header does not obscure a button or that a multi-step login flow remains usable without sighted assistance.

Five of the six new WCAG 2.2 success criteria explicitly require manual testing. Any vendor claiming a “full WCAG 2.2 readiness check” by automation alone is likely omitting most of the new rules.

What to do next

  • Audit the basics now – Run a manual check for missing name/role/value attributes, colour contrast, clear link text, and adequate touch-target sizes.
  • Prioritise remediation – Add aria-label or visible text to icon-only buttons, adjust colour palettes to meet contrast requirements, make every link’s purpose evident from its text or context, and enlarge interactive elements to the recommended size.
  • Blend tools with human review – Use automated scanners to surface low-hanging fruit, then follow up with expert reviewers who can spot nuanced issues machines miss.
  • Plan for WCAG 2.2 – While addressing Level A, keep the upcoming criteria in mind; early alignment reduces the effort required when the November 2026 deadline arrives.

The bottom line is clear: the legal baseline is already being breached. Waiting for the next version of the guidelines does not excuse the current failures. Companies that act now will avoid penalties, improve user experience for millions, and set a solid foundation for the more demanding WCAG 2.2 standards.

Source: audit published on dev.to