What techniques help evaluate a UI's accessibility with automated tools vs. human testing?

• A. Manual testing only with assistive technology.
• B. Use automated checks for WCAG violations; complement with manual testing and assistive technology testing.
• C. Rely solely on user feedback after launch.
• D. Ignore WCAG during early development.

Answer: (B)

Balancing automated checks with human testing provides comprehensive accessibility evaluation. Automated checks quickly identify many WCAG violations—things like missing alt text, insufficient color contrast, improper semantic markup, or unconstrained form labels—and they run fast and consistently across the project. However, automation can’t reliably judge user experience: it can’t confirm that content makes sense when read by a screen reader, that keyboard navigation follows a logical focus order, or that dynamic components announce their state correctly. Manual testing, including keyboard-only exploration and testing with assistive technologies such as screen readers, reveals usability issues that automation misses and verifies that instructions and feedback are meaningful. The most effective approach combines both: use automated checks to catch the obvious conformance gaps, then perform manual and assistive technology testing to validate real-world accessibility. Do this early in development to catch issues sooner. Relying solely on user feedback after launch or ignoring WCAG during development leads to missed problems and noncompliance.