The Methodology Paradox: Why Automated Testing and Manual Audits Both Fail
How the False Choice Between Efficiency and Accuracy Perpetuates Systematic Accessibility Exclusion
The accessibility testing field has become trapped in a false dichotomy between automated testing tools that promise scalability but miss critical barriers, and manual audits that catch nuanced failures but can't match organizational pace. This research examines how both methodologies, when deployed in isolation, systematically fail disabled users through different but equally problematic mechanisms. By analyzing patterns across recent WCAG audits and testing implementations, this paper reveals that the methodology debate itself obscures the real problem: neither approach addresses the fundamental implementation gaps that allow accessibility barriers to persist despite testing. The solution isn't choosing between automated and manual approaches, but understanding why both methodologies fail to translate testing insights into lasting accessibility improvements.
