Automated accessibility testing is valuable because it can detect many objective failures quickly and consistently. It can also be repeated after every deployment, which makes it useful for regression monitoring.
But automated testing has a hard limit: some accessibility requirements depend on context, meaning and actual user interaction.
What automation is good at
What still needs judgment
Whether alternative text is actually meaningful cannot always be decided from code alone. Whether a flow is understandable with a screen reader, whether instructions make sense, or whether a complex interaction is usable often requires human evaluation.
ADAFix therefore separates findings into automatic fixes, source-code patches, and manual-review items. We do not turn “the scanner found nothing” into “your entire site is compliant.”
The useful goal is not a magic score. It is knowing what was tested, what failed, what changed, and what was verified after the change.