Key findings
- 97% of websites (292 of 302) had at least one failure of WCAG Level A or AA that automated testing can find. Leaving colour contrast aside, it was still 96%.
- 48% of pages (9,668 of 20,219) had at least one such failure.
- The two most common problems, low colour contrast and links with no name, were each found on 62% of websites.
- Almost half the websites (48%) already fail WCAG 2.2's target size rule for small buttons and links.
- Of 3,737 PDFs checked on two large public-sector websites, only 49 (1.3%) passed PDF/UA, and 39% had no tags at all.
These are only the problems a machine can detect. Automated testing finds a part of all accessibility barriers (often quoted as about a third), so the real number of barriers on these sites is higher.
The most common failures
The share of the 302 websites where each problem was found on at least one tested page.
Most common automatically detectable WCAG Level A and AA failures, by share of websites affected (302 websites, autumn 2026)
| Problem | WCAG criterion | Websites | What it means for people |
|---|
| Text with too little colour contrast | 1.4.3 | 62% | Light grey or pale text on a light background that many people with low vision cannot read. |
|---|
| Links with no name | 2.4.4, 4.1.2 | 62% | Icon links or image links that a screen reader announces only as "link", so the user cannot tell where it goes. |
|---|
| Touch targets that are too small | 2.5.8 (WCAG 2.2) | 48% | Buttons and links smaller than 24 by 24 pixels with no space around them, hard to tap for people with tremors or limited dexterity. |
|---|
| Broken list structure | 1.3.1 | 35% | Lists built with the wrong elements, so screen readers do not announce how many items there are. |
|---|
| Frames with no title | 4.1.2 | 33% | Embedded maps, videos and forms that a screen reader cannot identify. |
|---|
| ARIA roles missing their required parts | 1.3.1 | 30% | Menus, tabs and lists marked up with ARIA that is incomplete, so assistive technology gets the structure wrong. |
|---|
| List items outside a list | 1.3.1 | 28% | Items that look like a list on screen but are not inside one in the code. |
|---|
| Images with no alt text | 1.1.1 | 22% | Informative pictures with no text alternative, so screen-reader users miss what they show. |
|---|
| ARIA attributes that are not allowed | 4.1.2 | 18% | ARIA used on elements where it is not permitted, which can make controls announce wrongly. |
|---|
| Buttons with no name | 4.1.2 | 16% | Buttons, often icon-only, that are announced only as "button". |
|---|
| Links shown only by colour | 1.4.1 | 16% | Links inside text that differ from the text around them only by colour, invisible to some colour-blind users. |
|---|
PDFs on public websites
A11ytek Monitor also opened every PDF linked from two large public-sector websites and checked 3,737 of them against PDF/UA (ISO 14289-1) with veraPDF. Only 49 passed.
- 39% had no tags, so a screen reader cannot tell headings, paragraphs, lists or tables apart.
- 41% had no document title and 33% had no language set.
- Of the PDFs with pictures, 41% had pictures with no alt text.
- 13% were scans: pictures of pages with no real text, which a screen reader cannot read at all.
Two websites are a small sample, so read these figures as an example, not a national average. See our PDF accessibility checklist for how to fix each of these.
What this means
In Ontario, the AODA has required designated public-sector organisations, and businesses and non-profits with 50 or more employees, to meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA since 1 January 2021. In the United States, the ADA Title II rule adopts WCAG 2.1 Level AA for state and local governments. Most of the failures above are quick to fix once they are found: a missing link name or alt text is often a one-line change.
Start with your own site: ask for a free accessibility report, or check your colours with the free contrast checker.
How we tested
- Tool: A11ytek Monitor with the axe-core accessibility engine, counting only rules mapped to WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 Level A and AA.
- Sites: 302 websites, 94 in Canada (mostly Ontario) and 208 in the United States (mostly Massachusetts), chosen from public bodies and community organisations.
- Pages: up to 25 or 100 pages per site, found by following links from the home page; the latest complete scan of each site was used.
- Left out: pages that failed to load, and files that are not web pages (sitemaps, feeds and PDFs in the page counts).
- Dates: 8 September to 29 October 2026.
- Limits: automated testing cannot judge everything, for example whether alt text is accurate or whether a page works with the keyboard alone.
You may quote these findings with a link to this page.
Common questions
What percentage of public websites have accessibility problems?
In our sample of 302 public and community websites in Canada and the United States, 97% had at least one failure of WCAG Level A or AA that automated testing can find, and 48% of the 20,219 pages tested had at least one.
What is the most common website accessibility failure?
Low colour contrast and links with no accessible name were tied: each appeared on 62% of the websites tested.
How accessible are PDFs on public websites?
Of 3,737 PDFs from two large public-sector websites that we checked against PDF/UA with veraPDF, 49 passed (1.3%). 39% had no tags at all.
Does automated testing find every accessibility problem?
No. Automated tools find only part of the problems, often quoted as about a third. Real conformance also needs keyboard and screen-reader testing by a person.
Published: 30 October 2026
