Accessibility standards are clearly defined. But audit reports vary enormously, from comprehensive technical guides to austere checklists. A poorly matched audit report can fail to drive real change.
Some parts sustain the findings. This includes the scope of the analysis (which pages are analysed and which criteria the analysis is based on), the people doing the analysis, the tools and methods used, and the sample of pages included.
The most important part is the findings. For each criterion, it should state if it complies or not (or if it does partially), or if the criterion doesn’t apply to the website. For example, criteria about video content don’t apply if there is no video content on the site.
This usually includes a description of the criterion, why compliance failed (if appropriate), and ways it could be fixed.
Also, an executive summary of whether the website complies based on the analysis of the sample.
Based on the authors’ background and approach, the audit can include a comprehensive list of every single error in every single page, code snippets and suggestions of the best implementation, or a list of priorities so that common and more impactful errors are fixed first. An audit report can bring data for strategic decisions, evidence for planning technical implementation, or be just a formality.
An audit is only useful if it answers the question the organisation actually needs answered. Alignment between the audit scope and the business need determines whether the report drives change or checks a box.