An accessibility audit report should include a list of identified issues mapped to specific Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) success criteria, severity ratings for each issue, the location of each issue within the product, and remediation guidance. A complete report gives your team enough detail to prioritize and fix issues without needing to repeat the evaluation.
| Component | What It Covers |
|---|---|
| Issue List | Each accessibility issue identified, described in specific terms with its location in the product |
| WCAG Mapping | The WCAG success criterion each issue violates, referenced by number and conformance level |
| Severity Ratings | A rating system indicating user impact, such as critical, major, or minor |
| Remediation Guidance | Specific instructions or code examples explaining how to fix each issue |
Issue Descriptions and Locations
Every issue in the report should be described clearly enough that a developer can locate and reproduce it. This means including the page URL, the specific element or component affected, and a plain-language description of what is wrong.
Screenshots or code snippets add clarity. A report that says “images are missing alternative text” without specifying which images on which pages creates extra work for your remediation team.
WCAG Success Criteria References
Each issue should map to one or more WCAG success criteria. This mapping tells you exactly which conformance requirements are not being met.
For example, a missing form label maps to WCAG 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships) and 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value). Knowing the criteria helps your team understand the scope of each issue and whether it falls under Level A or Level AA conformance.
Severity and User Impact Ratings
Not every issue carries the same weight. A severity rating system helps your team prioritize remediation by distinguishing between issues that block access entirely and those that create friction without preventing use.
Common frameworks rate issues as critical, major, or minor. Some reports also include a risk factor that accounts for legal exposure alongside user impact.
How Remediation Guidance Adds Value to the Report
A report that only lists problems without explaining fixes leaves your team guessing. Quality remediation guidance includes specific recommendations, often with code examples or references to WCAG sufficient techniques.
This guidance is part of what distinguishes a professional audit from an automated scan. Scans flag approximately 25% of accessibility issues and provide generic descriptions. An audit identifies the full range of issues and delivers context-specific remediation steps.
Executive Summary and Conformance Statement
Most audit reports open with an executive summary that states the scope of the evaluation, the WCAG version and conformance level evaluated against (typically 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA), and a high-level overview of the results.
This section is written for non-technical readers. It gives leadership a quick understanding of the product’s current accessibility posture without requiring them to read every technical finding.
What a Thin Report Looks Like
Reports that lack specificity cost more in the long run. If your audit report contains vague descriptions, no WCAG mapping, or no remediation guidance, your developers will spend additional hours researching each issue independently.
When evaluating audit providers, ask for a sample report. The accessibility audit report contents described here represent a baseline for professional-quality work, and most audits in this range start at $1,000 and go up to $3,000 depending on scope.