Accessibility scan reports present a defined set of metrics that describe the current state of a website’s conformance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These metrics typically include total issue counts, severity or impact ratings, affected WCAG success criteria, page-level breakdowns, and element-level detail. Each metric serves a different purpose in helping teams understand what the scan identified and where to direct remediation effort.
| Metric | What It Tells You |
|---|---|
| Total Issue Count | The number of distinct accessibility issues the scan identified across all pages evaluated. |
| Severity or Impact Rating | How much each issue affects people who use assistive technologies, often rated as critical, serious, moderate, or minor. |
| WCAG Criteria Reference | The specific WCAG success criterion each issue maps to, such as 1.1.1 (Non-text Content) or 2.4.4 (Link Purpose). |
| Page-Level Breakdown | Issue distribution by individual URL, showing which pages carry the highest concentration of issues. |
| Element Detail | The HTML element, selector, or code snippet where each issue occurs, giving developers a precise location for remediation. |
Issue Counts and How They Are Grouped
The most visible metric in any scan report is the total number of issues. This count reflects what the automated scan was able to detect, which is approximately 25% of all potential WCAG conformance issues. The remaining 75% requires human evaluation.
Reports typically group issues by type. If 40 images across a site are missing alternative text, some reports count that as one issue type with 40 instances, while others count each occurrence separately. Understanding how a report groups issues prevents misreading the scale of the results.
Severity and Impact Ratings
Most scan reports assign a severity level to each issue. These ratings reflect how significantly the issue affects the ability of someone using assistive technology to perceive, operate, or understand the content.
A critical rating usually means the content is completely inaccessible to a group of users. A minor rating typically indicates something that creates friction but does not block access entirely. Teams use these ratings to prioritize which issues to remediate first.
WCAG Criteria Mapping
Each flagged issue links back to the specific WCAG success criterion it violates. This mapping is one of the most useful metrics in a scan report because it connects the technical finding to the documented standard.
Knowing the criterion helps teams understand the intent behind the requirement and choose the right remediation approach. It also supports conformance documentation and reporting at the organizational level.
Page-Level and Element-Level Detail
Scan reports break results down by URL, showing exactly which pages contain which issues. This page-level view lets teams prioritize high-traffic or high-risk pages for remediation before lower-priority sections of the site.
At the element level, reports typically include the HTML selector or a code snippet where the issue appears. This detail gives developers the precise location they need to apply a fix without searching through source code manually.
Trend Metrics in Recurring Scans
When scans run on a recurring schedule, reports often include trend data. This shows whether the total issue count is increasing, decreasing, or holding steady over time.
Trend metrics are valuable for measuring the effectiveness of remediation work and for identifying regressions. A spike in issues after a new deployment, for example, signals that the release introduced new conformance problems.
Scan report metrics give teams a structured view of the issues automated evaluation can detect, along with the severity, location, and standard each issue relates to. The metrics form the starting point, not the full picture, of a site’s accessibility posture.