Top Accessibility Issues — and How to Fix Them

Most accessibility barriers are common, well-understood and entirely fixable. In expert reviews, the same handful of issues account for a large share of what we find — which is good news, because it means a focused effort on a few problem areas can deliver a substantial improvement in accessibility.

It matters for a real and sizeable audience: the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022 Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers found that 5.5 million Australians — 21.4%, more than one in five — live with disability.

This article walks through the issues we see most often: what each one is, who it affects, and how to fix it, with the relevant WCAG concept noted so you can see how the practical problem maps to the standard.

Poor colour contrast

Colour contrast issues occur when text does not stand out sufficiently from its background. Light grey text on a white background, or white text on a pale photograph, can be difficult or impossible to read for people with low vision, and for anyone using a screen in bright sunlight.

Who it affects: people with low vision, people with colour vision deficiency, older users, and situationally anyone in poor lighting conditions.

How to fix it: WCAG requires a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text at Level AA. Check your designs with a colour contrast tool before colours are finalised, when they are still cheap to change. Equally important, never use colour as the only way to convey meaning — pair it with text or an icon, so that information is not lost on someone who cannot distinguish the colours.

Missing or unhelpful alternative text

Alternative text (alt text) is the written description of an image that a screen reader announces to a user who cannot see it. When meaningful images lack alt text, screen-reader users simply miss that information; when alt text is present but unhelpful — image1.jpg, or a keyword-stuffed description — it is worse than useless.

Who it affects: people who are blind or have low vision and use screen readers.

How to fix it: give every image that conveys information concise, descriptive alt text that communicates the same meaning a sighted user would take from it. Images that are purely decorative should be given empty alt text (alt="") so that assistive technology skips them rather than announcing a distracting filename. The simple test: if the image carries meaning, describe that meaning; if it is decoration, hide it.

Inaccessible forms

Forms are where many of the most important interactions happen — signing up, enquiring, paying — and they are also where accessibility frequently breaks down. The most common problems are form fields without proper labels, labels that are only visual placeholders that disappear when typing begins, and error messages that are unclear or not announced to assistive technology.

Who it affects: screen-reader users, people with cognitive disabilities, and in practice anyone who makes a mistake and needs to recover from it.

How to fix it: give every field a clear, persistent, programmatically associated label. When validation fails, identify the specific field in plain language and explain how to correct it — for example, “Please enter a valid email address, such as name@example.com” rather than a generic failure message. Preserve what the user has already entered rather than clearing the form. WCAG 2.2 also introduced Redundant Entry, which discourages asking users to re-enter information they have already provided in the same process.

Lack of keyboard navigability

Many people cannot or do not use a mouse, and instead navigate entirely by keyboard — moving with the Tab key and activating controls with Enter or Space. When a site requires mouse interaction, or traps keyboard focus so it cannot move on, or hides the focus indicator so users cannot tell where they are, those people are blocked.

Who it affects: people with motor disabilities, most screen-reader users, and many power users.

How to fix it: ensure every interactive element can be reached and operated by keyboard, in a logical order that follows the visual layout. Keep the focus indicator clearly visible at all times, and make sure focus is never trapped. WCAG 2.2’s Focus Not Obscured criterion adds a related requirement: a focused element must not be completely hidden behind sticky headers, banners or other overlapping content.

Video and audio without captions or transcripts

Multimedia content is everywhere, and it is frequently published without captions for video or transcripts for audio. This excludes a significant audience and, increasingly, falls short of expectations and obligations alike.

Who it affects: people who are deaf or hard of hearing — and, situationally, anyone watching without sound, in a noisy environment, or who simply prefers to read.

How to fix it: provide accurate captions for all video with meaningful audio, and transcripts for audio-only content. Automatically generated captions are a reasonable starting point, but they must be reviewed and corrected — errors in auto-captions can render them misleading or useless.

Unclear page structure and headings

Screen-reader users often navigate a page by its headings, jumping between them much as a sighted user scans down the page. When headings are missing, skipped, or used purely to achieve a visual size rather than to describe structure, that navigation breaks down.

Who it affects: screen-reader users, and people with cognitive disabilities who rely on clear structure.

How to fix it: use a single main heading per page, followed by a logical, properly nested hierarchy of subheadings that genuinely describe the content. Choose heading levels for meaning, not appearance — styling can make a correctly-levelled heading look however you wish.

Fixing issues at the source

One principle ties all of these together. Because most websites are built from shared templates and components that repeat across many pages, a single issue — a low-contrast button style, an unlabelled search field, a missing focus indicator — often appears hundreds of times across a site.

Identifying and fixing the root cause once, at the component or template level, resolves it everywhere at once. This is why a good accessibility review traces issues back to their source rather than simply listing every instance, and why automated scanning alone is only part of the picture.

For anything customer-facing or business-critical, the most reliable approach combines automated checks, expert manual review and lived-experience testing. If you would like a clear, prioritised picture of the issues affecting your own site, that is exactly what an IncluD accessibility review provides.

FAQ

Q: What is the minimum colour contrast ratio under WCAG?

WCAG requires a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text at Level AA.

Q: What are the most common web accessibility issues?

Poor colour contrast, missing or unhelpful alternative text, inaccessible forms, keyboard navigation problems, and video or audio without captions or transcripts are among the most common barriers found in expert reviews.

Q: Can I find all accessibility issues with an automated tool?

No. Automated tools catch common, machine-detectable issues but evaluate only a portion of WCAG criteria. Expert review and lived-experience testing are needed for the rest.