Build your portfolio with meaningful HTML structure, then check it with both automated tools and hands-on review. A scanner can flag potential problems, but it cannot establish that your site meets accessibility standards; you also need to test how people can navigate and use the page.
Start with WCAG 2.2, not an automated score
WCAG 2.2 is the current W3C version covered by these resources. W3C published it as a Recommendation on 5 October 2023; it adds nine success criteria to WCAG 2.1, while removing the 4.1.1 Parsing criterion. The earlier criteria are largely retained. See W3C’s summary of what is new in WCAG 2.2.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
For conformance requirements, consult the normative WCAG standard. W3C tutorials and techniques offer informative examples; they do not themselves create or change requirements. The distinction is explained in W3C’s overview of the WCAG documents.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →An accessibility audit is an evaluation of pages and functionality against applicable requirements, not a score from one tool. The practical workflow below is useful for a portfolio review, but completing it does not by itself demonstrate full WCAG conformance.
#1 Best Overall
Give the portfolio a navigable semantic structure
Semantic HTML communicates what content is and how it relates, rather than relying only on visual appearance. That helps people orient themselves and navigate with assistive technology. W3C’s page structure tutorial recommends meaningful elements and page regions, with labels where appropriate.
Use page regions and headings to express the outline
Use appropriate HTML landmarks, such as <header>, <nav>, <main>, and <footer>, to identify the page’s major regions. Use headings to name and organize sections. A portfolio might have one main heading such as “Jordan Lee — Product Designer,” followed by headings for “Selected work,” “About,” and “Contact,” with project titles nested as headings under “Selected work.”
Choose heading levels according to the relationship between sections, not the size you want the text to appear. Style headings with CSS. W3C’s G141 technique gives examples of logical heading organization and its relationship to conveying information and relationships.
Make titles, links, and project cards understandable
Give each page an informative, unique title, and use concise headings that identify each section’s topic or purpose. Headings help visitors scan a page and let screen reader users understand its outline. W3C offers practical advice on writing for web accessibility.
Write link text that still makes sense when read outside its surrounding paragraph. A list of repeated “View project” links is harder to distinguish than links that identify the work, such as “View the Northstar app redesign.” For project cards, use real headings and links rather than making a visual block appear interactive without exposing its purpose and operation in HTML.
Represent visual information in text and markup
Review images, forms, and other interactive content as part of the structure check. For portfolio images, consider what information the image contributes in context and provide an appropriate text alternative. Ensure forms have labels and that visually indicated relationships—such as a field’s label or a project’s title—are also represented in the markup. This is a review prompt, not a claim that one particular alternative-text rule covers every image.
Rank #4
Audit a portfolio in a practical sequence
- Review structure and content. Inspect each page’s title, regions, heading hierarchy, section labels, link wording, images, forms, and project cards. Check whether the page’s structure and relationships are expressed in HTML, not only through visual styling. W3C’s writing tips, page structure tutorial, and heading technique provide supporting examples.
- Run an automated evaluation. Use a tool to surface potential issues, then investigate its findings in context. Pick a tool that supports the content and evaluation method you need; W3C maintains a directory of web accessibility evaluation tools.
- Operate the site with a keyboard. Move through every link and control, activate each function, and confirm that you can reach and leave interactive elements without a keyboard trap. Watch for a visible focus indicator as you move. W3C’s G202 technique addresses keyboard control for functionality.
- Check whether focus is obscured. Pay particular attention to sticky headers, fixed navigation, overlays, or other interface elements that might cover the control receiving focus. WCAG 2.2 includes the Focus Not Obscured criterion; the applicable requirements are described in the W3C WCAG 2.2 overview.
- Review findings with human judgment. Ask whether names, labels, headings, and page relationships make sense in context, including when using assistive technology. Automated results can be incomplete or misleading. W3C puts it plainly: “However, no tool alone can determine if a site meets accessibility standards. Knowledgeable human evaluation is required.” See the W3C overview of evaluating web accessibility.
- Fix, retest, and record what you checked. Revisit relevant checks after changes. Record which pages and methods were included, and describe the limits of the evaluation accurately—for example, distinguish a quick scan from a broader conformance assessment. W3C recommends evaluating early and throughout development and redesign in its evaluation overview.
Choose evaluation tools for the job
Tools differ in what they evaluate and how they support review. Before choosing one, consider:
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →- Evaluation method: Does it run automated checks, support manual testing, simulate aspects of user experience, or combine methods?
- Content type: Does it evaluate websites, documents, or the particular content you need to assess?
- Workflow support: Can you use it to organize and interpret manual checks, or does it only report automated findings?
- License: Is it free, open source, commercial, or enterprise software?
- Accessibility of the tool: Can people using assistive technology operate the evaluation tool itself?
W3C discusses these selection factors and cautions that tool output can be incomplete or misleading in its guidance on selecting web accessibility evaluation tools. Treat a result as evidence to investigate, not as proof that the page conforms or a measure of how usable it is.
When to use a formal evaluation methodology
For a broader assessment, WCAG-EM 2.0 sets out a methodology for evaluating web accessibility. W3C published it as a Group Note on 23 July 2026. It is intended for evaluators with a solid understanding of WCAG, assistive technology, and disability access, rather than as a beginner checklist. Read the WCAG Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 2.0 for its scope and approach.
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.
