Common accessibility failures—such as images without useful alternatives, inaccessible forms, or tasks that cannot be completed by keyboard—can prevent people with disabilities from using a website and may create legal exposure. A WCAG failure is not, by itself, a universal legal finding: the applicable law depends on jurisdiction, the organization, the content, and the facts. In the United States, the Department of Justice has set WCAG 2.1 Level AA requirements for covered state and local governments under its Title II web rule; that specific rule does not establish the same technical requirement for every private website.
What counts as a WCAG violation?
WCAG conformance is determined by meeting the standard’s success criteria, not by a scanner score or a general impression that a page is accessible. The criteria are grouped under four principles: content must be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. Each criterion has a conformance level—A, AA, or AAA. Many accessibility policies and laws refer to Level AA, but the applicable version and level depend on the specific requirement. See the W3C overview of WCAG and the WCAG 2.2 standard.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The ten patterns below are practical, high-impact examples, not a statistically ranked list. W3C’s techniques and failure examples illustrate ways criteria can be met or missed; they are not an exhaustive list of every valid implementation. The WCAG 2.2 Techniques are informative examples.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 1110 common website accessibility failures
1. Images have no useful text alternative
What goes wrong: A product image, diagram, or linked image has no text alternative, or its alternative is merely a filename such as “IMG_4831.jpg.” Someone using a screen reader may miss the information or purpose conveyed visually. Decorative images can also become noise if they are announced unnecessarily.
#1 Best Overall
Relevant criterion: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.1.1, Non-text Content (Level A).
Fix: Give informative images a concise alternative that conveys the information or function needed in context. Mark purely decorative images so assistive technology can ignore them. For a linked image, describe the link’s purpose rather than just its appearance.
2. Videos are missing accurate captions
What goes wrong: A video includes speech or meaningful sounds, but its captions are absent, incomplete, or inaccurate. Deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers can miss dialogue, speaker changes, or sound cues that matter to understanding the clip.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Relevant criterion: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.2.2, Captions (Prerecorded) (Level A), for prerecorded synchronized media.
Fix: Provide synchronized captions that include speech and meaningful non-speech audio. Review automatically generated captions for omissions and mistakes; W3C identifies omitted dialogue and important sound effects as examples of failures.
3. Core tasks cannot be completed with a keyboard
What goes wrong: A menu, dialog, carousel, or other control works only with a mouse, or keyboard users can enter a widget but cannot leave it. This can block people who use a keyboard or alternative input devices.
Relevant criteria: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 2.1.1, Keyboard (Level A), and 2.1.2, No Keyboard Trap (Level A).
Fix: Test the complete task using only the keyboard. Use Tab and Shift+Tab to move through controls, Enter or Space to activate them where appropriate, and arrow keys when the widget’s interaction pattern calls for them. Confirm that focus can leave menus and dialogs, and that focus is managed sensibly when a dialog opens and closes.
4. Keyboard focus is invisible or hidden behind page content
What goes wrong: A keyboard user cannot tell which control is active, or a sticky header, banner, or footer entirely covers the focused component. The user can lose their place or be unable to see where an action will happen.
Relevant criteria: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 2.4.7, Focus Visible (Level AA), and 2.4.11, Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) (Level AA). W3C states that a focused component must not be entirely hidden due to author-created content.
Fix: Preserve a clear visible focus indicator instead of removing the browser outline without an equally visible replacement. Check focus while sticky elements and banners are present, and adjust scrolling, layout, or focus styles so those elements do not completely obscure it.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
5. Text or controls have inadequate contrast
What goes wrong: Text blends into its background, or an important control boundary or state is too subtle to distinguish. Low contrast can make content difficult to read or interactive elements difficult to identify, particularly for people with low vision.
Relevant criteria: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.4.3, Contrast (Minimum) (Level AA), for text, and 1.4.11, Non-text Contrast (Level AA), for relevant visual information in user-interface components and graphics.
Fix: Measure foreground and background colors rather than assuming a brand color passes. Under Criterion 1.4.3, normal text generally needs a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 and large text at least 3:1. Criterion 1.4.11 generally requires 3:1 contrast for visual information needed to identify user-interface components and states against adjacent colors. Check every state that conveys information, such as focus, selected, and disabled states where applicable.
6. Visual structure is not represented in the markup
What goes wrong: Text only looks like a heading because it is bold and large, or a table’s row and column relationships are conveyed visually but not in its markup. People using assistive technology may be unable to navigate or understand the same structure.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Relevant criterion: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.3.1, Info and Relationships (Level A).
Fix: Use actual heading elements in a meaningful hierarchy, list markup for lists, and appropriate table headers and relationships for data tables. Do not rely on appearance alone to communicate a relationship. W3C’s failure examples include presentation changes that convey information without suitable markup.
7. Forms lack labels, instructions, or useful error messages
What goes wrong: A field’s purpose is shown only by placeholder text, required formats are unclear, or an error is announced only with color or a vague message. A person may not know what to enter or how to correct a submission.
Relevant criteria: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.3.1, Info and Relationships (Level A), 3.3.1, Error Identification (Level A), and 3.3.2, Labels or Instructions (Level A).
Fix: Associate each input with a programmatic label, give necessary instructions before entry, and identify errors in text. Make the affected field clear and explain how to fix the problem; do not rely on color alone. For a required format, provide an example or instruction before the user submits.
8. Content breaks when text is enlarged or the viewport narrows
What goes wrong: Enlarged text overlaps, content disappears, or users must scroll in two directions to read ordinary page content on a narrow screen. People who enlarge text or use a small viewport can lose information or functionality.
Relevant criteria: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.4.4, Resize Text (Level AA); 1.4.10, Reflow (Level AA); and 1.4.12, Text Spacing (Level AA).
Fix: Test pages with text resized, at narrow viewport widths, and with the text-spacing overrides specified by WCAG. Check that content remains available and functional, not just that the desktop layout looks intact. Consult the criterion text for the exact conditions and exceptions that apply to each test.
Rank #4
9. Unexpected context changes or time limits interrupt tasks
What goes wrong: Moving focus or changing a field unexpectedly navigates to another page, submits a form, or opens a new context. A session also may expire while someone is still completing a task. These behaviors can disorient users or leave them unable to finish.
Relevant criteria: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 3.2.1, On Focus (Level A), 3.2.2, On Input (Level A), and 2.2.1, Timing Adjustable (Level A), where the criterion applies.
Fix: Do not trigger a substantial change of context simply because a control receives focus or a value changes unless the behavior has been explained. For time limits covered by the criterion, provide a way to turn off, adjust, or extend the limit as required. The specific criterion has conditions and exceptions, so assess the actual task rather than assuming every timed interaction is prohibited.
10. Custom controls do not expose their name, role, state, or value
What goes wrong: A custom-built button, switch, or other widget looks interactive but its purpose or current state is not available to assistive technology, or its keyboard behavior does not match what users expect. A screen reader user may not know what the control does or whether it is on.
Relevant criterion: WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 4.1.2, Name, Role, Value (Level A).
Fix: Prefer native HTML controls when they provide the required behavior. If a custom widget is necessary, expose its accessible name, role, and state or value; support the expected keyboard interaction; and test it with assistive technology. W3C lists incomplete accessibility API support for custom controls among its failure examples.
Does every website have to meet WCAG 2.1 AA?
No single answer applies to every website worldwide. In the United States, the ADA covers state and local governments under Title II and businesses open to the public under Title III, but the Department of Justice’s specific web-accessibility rule establishes WCAG 2.1 Level AA as a technical standard for covered state and local government entities. It applies to covered web content and mobile apps that an entity provides or makes available, including through contracts and other arrangements; vendor involvement alone does not settle whether content is in scope.
Best Value
The DOJ’s April 2026 extension sets different compliance dates by entity size: covered governments serving populations of 50,000 or more have until April 26, 2027; covered governments serving fewer than 50,000 and special district governments have until April 26, 2028. These dates reflect the DOJ’s published extension and should be checked against current official guidance before being relied on. See the DOJ Title II web rule fact sheet and its first-steps guidance.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThe rule also specifies exceptions for certain content and situations; those are not a blanket exemption for older or vendor-provided material. Other ADA duties, including effective communication and equal opportunity, may remain relevant in a particular case. The DOJ’s Title II regulations and general web-accessibility guidance describe the broader context. The Title II technical rule should not be treated as a universal WCAG mandate for all private websites. Legal exposure depends on the jurisdiction, applicable law, entity, specific barrier, and circumstances; get advice from qualified counsel for a particular dispute or obligation.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Is WCAG 2.2 relevant if a rule names WCAG 2.1?
Yes, as a practical accessibility target, but keep the named legal standard distinct. W3C identifies WCAG 2.2 as the latest WCAG 2 Recommendation in its current materials and encourages use of the latest version. Its current Recommendation publication is dated 12 December 2024. WCAG 2.2 adds nine success criteria beyond WCAG 2.1. A rule that expressly requires WCAG 2.1 AA should not be silently restated as requiring WCAG 2.2; conversely, a team using the newer standard should account for its additional criteria. See What’s New in WCAG 2.2.
Can an accessibility checker tell whether a site is compliant?
A checker can help locate some issues, but an automated result alone does not establish whole-site WCAG conformance. It cannot reliably judge every meaningful alternative, whether a complete task works for keyboard users, or whether instructions and errors make sense in context. A clean scan is not a legal certification.
Use automation as one part of a broader review:
- Scan representative pages and shared templates, not only the homepage.
- Manually complete important user journeys using only a keyboard, including menus, dialogs, and forms.
- Review content and structure with assistive technology, including image alternatives, heading hierarchy, labels, and error messages.
- Test zoom, reflow, text spacing, contrast, and focus visibility in real page states.
- Check third-party widgets and vendor-controlled content as part of the experience users actually encounter.
- Assign remediation ownership, retest fixes, and document which standard and legal scope the work addresses.
An accessibility audit can organize those checks, but no named tool or service is endorsed here as a substitute for evaluating the applicable standard and the full user journey.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Capture a visual record of a page during review
A screenshot can preserve how a page looked in a particular state, but it cannot show whether a screen reader receives a useful label, whether a task works by keyboard, or whether the site meets WCAG. ScreenshotNeo is a website screenshot API and MCP server; it can capture a page image or PDF, which may be useful as a visual record alongside—not instead of—accessibility testing. Its API and options are described at ScreenshotNeo.
For example, this cURL request saves a screenshot of a page; use your own API key and target URL. See the ScreenshotNeo documentation for API details.
curl -G "https://api.screenshotneo.com/v1/shot" -d access_key=YOUR_API_KEY --data-urlencode url=https://stripe.com -o shot.webpScreenshotNeo removes supported cookie-consent banners, newsletter popups, and chat widgets before capture, and its response identifies page verdict and billing status; bot checks, blank pages, timeouts, failed loads, and cache hits are not billed. Its MCP server offers screenshot tools for AI agents. The Free plan includes 1,000 screenshots a month with no card, and paid plans start at $5 for 3,000. Sign up for 1,000 free screenshots a month, with no card required.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does WCAG certification guarantee that a website cannot face an accessibility claim?
No. A conformance assessment does not guarantee immunity from a legal claim; applicable obligations and outcomes depend on the relevant law and facts.
Recommended Free Tools
Are the ten failures listed here statistically the most frequent WCAG violations?
No. They are practical, high-impact patterns, not a measured prevalence ranking.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
