Free WCAG Checker
Test a page against the machine-testable WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA success criteria. Every finding names the criterion it relates to.
- Perceivable
- Operable
- Understandable
- Robust
- Level A
- Level AA
Each page is rendered in a real browser and tested with axe-core against the machine-testable WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA success criteria. Automated testing does not replace a manual accessibility review.
The same checker, for people who think in success criteria
This page runs the free TagPipes Website Accessibility Checker: one page address, loaded in a real browser, tested with axe-core against the machine-testable WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA success criteria, reported in plain language. What is different here is the explanation around it, written for people who think in success criteria.
What WCAG is, in one screen
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are published by the W3C and are the technical standard almost every accessibility law, policy and procurement rule points to. They are organized under four principles: content must be perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. Under those sit testable success criteria, each numbered (1.4.3, 2.4.4, 4.1.2) and each assigned a level.
Level A
The minimum. Criteria that, if failed, make content unusable for some people: images without alternatives, controls without names, keyboard traps.
Level AA
The level most laws and policies reference. Adds contrast minimums, visible focus, consistent navigation, resize and reflow, and more.
Level AAA
The highest level, applied to specific content rather than whole sites. Not covered by this scan.
Versions build on each other. WCAG 2.1 added criteria for mobile, low vision and cognitive needs on top of 2.0; WCAG 2.2 added a further nine, including focus appearance, dragging alternatives and minimum target size. A page that meets 2.2 AA meets 2.1 AA and 2.0 AA as well. This scan uses rules for criteria through WCAG 2.2.
Which WCAG criteria can be tested automatically
Automated tools evaluate a portion of the success criteria, and usually only part of each one. Here is what that looks like for the criteria that come up most.
| Success criterion | Level | Detected by this scan | Still needs a person |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1.1 Non-text Content | A | Images with no alt attribute; alt text that repeats adjacent text | Whether the alt text describes the image well |
| 1.3.1 Info and Relationships | A | Form fields without labels; skipped heading levels; list and table markup errors | Whether the visual structure is fully expressed in the markup |
| 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) | AA | Text below 4.5:1 (3:1 for large text) against its background | Text over images and gradients the engine cannot resolve |
| 2.1.1 Keyboard | A | Scrolling regions and custom controls that cannot receive focus | Whether every task can be completed with the keyboard alone |
| 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) | A | Links with no text; identical link text pointing at different places | Whether the link text is actually descriptive |
| 2.4.7 Focus Visible | AA | Focus outlines removed in CSS with nothing in their place (partially) | Whether the replacement indicator is visible enough |
| 3.1.1 Language of Page | A | Missing or invalid lang attribute | Passages in another language (3.1.2) |
| 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value | A | Buttons, links, selects and custom widgets with no accessible name; invalid or incomplete ARIA | Whether custom widgets behave the way their role promises |
Criteria such as 1.2.x (captions and audio description), 1.3.2 (meaningful sequence), 2.4.3 (focus order), 3.2.x (predictable behavior) and 3.3.x (helpful error messages) are largely or entirely judgment calls, and a scan will not report on them. Automated testing does not replace a manual accessibility review.
How findings map to WCAG in the report
Each finding is written so a developer, a content editor and a manager can all use it.
1. Plain-language finding
What was detected, why it matters to visitors, and the recommended action. The severity (critical to low) reflects how much the issue affects people, not the WCAG level.
2. Success criteria and level
The criteria the rule relates to, such as 1.4.3 (Level AA), with a link to the rule documentation. Findings that are widely recommended practice rather than a specific criterion are labeled "best practice".
3. Affected elements
Up to three example elements per finding, with their selector, a snippet of the HTML and the engine's failure summary, so the fix can start straight away.
Frequently asked questions
TagPipes monitors, configures and reports. It does not determine legal compliance and does not provide legal advice. Output is informational and reflects observed state at the time of observation. Rawsoft's expertise is technology, not law; please confirm any regulatory interpretation with your own counsel.
More ways to check accessibility
One checker, the same real-browser scan, explained for the question you came with. Every report opens at the same place.
- Website Accessibility CheckerThe free checker. Any public page.
- ADA Accessibility CheckerWhat an automated check can and cannot tell you about the ADA.
- Website Accessibility TestHow to test a site: automated scan plus a manual checklist.
- WordPress Accessibility CheckerThemes, plugins, the block editor and page builders.
- Shopify Accessibility CheckerThemes, apps, product pages and checkout.
- Webflow Accessibility CheckerDesigner-built layouts, interactions and CMS content.
- Wix Accessibility CheckerEditor-built pages, templates and apps.
- Squarespace Accessibility CheckerTemplates, blocks and galleries.
- All free toolsThe TagPipes free website checks.