You track WCAG conformance progress by recording audit results at each evaluation cycle and comparing issue counts, severity, and resolution rates over time. Without a structured tracking method, teams lose visibility into whether remediation efforts are actually moving the needle toward WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA conformance.
Conformance is not a single event. It is a position you reach and then maintain. Tracking progress is how you know where you stand at any given point.
| Tracking Element | What It Tells You |
|---|---|
| Issue count per audit cycle | Whether total accessibility issues are decreasing over time |
| Resolution rate | How quickly your team closes identified issues after each evaluation |
| Severity distribution | Whether high-impact issues are being addressed first |
| New issues introduced | Whether development or content updates are creating regression |
| Conformance percentage | How close each digital asset is to full WCAG conformance |
Why Tracking Progress Matters for Accessibility Projects
Most organizations start their accessibility work with an audit. The audit identifies issues. The team begins remediation. But without a way to measure progress, the project stalls.
Leadership wants to know whether the investment is paying off. Developers want to know what is left. Compliance teams want to know how close the organization is to meeting ADA compliance or EAA compliance requirements. Tracking gives everyone a shared reference point.
It also prevents the common pattern where an organization completes remediation, stops paying attention, and then discovers months later that new issues have been introduced through routine updates.
What Data Do You Need to Track WCAG Conformance?
The foundation is audit data. A manual accessibility audit is the only way to determine WCAG conformance. Scans can supplement your monitoring, but they only flag approximately 25% of issues. The real baseline comes from a thorough evaluation conducted by a qualified auditor.
From each audit cycle, you need:
Total issue count by WCAG success criterion. Severity or user impact rating for each issue. Which pages or screens are affected. Status of previously identified issues (resolved, in progress, or open). Any new issues that appeared since the last evaluation.
This data forms the core of your tracking system. Everything else, including charts, dashboards, and reports, is built on top of it.
Spreadsheets vs. a Dedicated Platform
Some teams track conformance progress in spreadsheets. This works for small projects with a single digital asset and a short timeline. You create columns for issue ID, criterion, severity, status, and date resolved. You compare snapshots manually.
The problem is scale. When a project involves multiple web apps, mobile apps, or websites, spreadsheets become difficult to maintain. Version control gets messy. Reporting takes time. And there is no automated way to see trends across assets.
The Accessibility Tracker Platform was built for this. It maps audit data to each digital asset, tracks issue resolution, and generates progress reports that show conformance movement over time. The platform also applies Risk Factor and User Impact prioritization formulas so teams know which issues to address first.
For organizations managing ongoing accessibility work, a dedicated platform saves hours of manual coordination every week.
How Often Should You Measure Progress?
This depends on the pace of your remediation work and how frequently your digital content changes.
A reasonable cadence for most teams is a formal progress review every 30 to 60 days during active remediation. This does not mean a full audit every month. It means reviewing the status of open issues, confirming what has been resolved, and noting any regression.
After reaching conformance, a quarterly check is typical. Some organizations in regulated industries or those subject to Section 508 or EN 301 549 requirements prefer monthly reviews to maintain documentation for procurement or compliance purposes.
Tracking Regression Is as Important as Tracking Fixes
One of the most valuable things a tracking system reveals is regression. Your team fixes 40 issues over two months. But during that same period, a content update introduces 12 new ones. Without tracking, you only see the work completed. You miss the ground you lost.
Treating new issues introduced after an audit as a separate metric gives leadership clarity on whether the organization needs better training, tighter review processes, or updated development standards.
The Accessibility Tracker Platform surfaces this automatically. When an auditor evaluates the asset again and uploads results, the platform compares them against the prior baseline and flags newly introduced issues.
Reporting to Decision-Makers
Accessibility work often competes for budget with other priorities. Clear reporting makes the case for continued investment.
The most effective progress reports include a conformance percentage for each digital asset, a trend line showing improvement (or decline) over the last three to six months, a breakdown of remaining issues by severity, and estimated effort to reach full WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA conformance.
These reports translate technical audit data into language that leadership, procurement teams, and legal counsel can act on. The platform generates AI-assisted progress reports that pull directly from audit data, which cuts report preparation down to minutes.
Does a scan replace the need for audit-based tracking?
No. Scans only flag approximately 25% of issues. They are useful for catching certain code-level problems between audits, but they cannot determine WCAG conformance. Your conformance tracking must be grounded in manual audit data. Scan results can supplement the picture, but they are not a substitute for evaluation by a qualified auditor.
Can I track conformance for a VPAT or ACR?
Yes. If your organization needs an ACR for procurement, tracking conformance progress is directly relevant. The ACR reflects the conformance state of your product at a specific point in time. By tracking progress between evaluations, you can time your ACR to coincide with peak conformance, meaning fewer reported issues and a stronger document for buyers reviewing your accessibility posture.
What if my team is working toward conformance across multiple digital assets?
This is where a platform approach becomes essential. Managing conformance data for one website in a spreadsheet is doable. Managing it for five web apps, two mobile apps, and a dozen microsites is not. The Accessibility Tracker Platform organizes each asset as a separate project with its own audit history, issue tracking, and progress reporting. You get a portfolio-level view alongside the detail for each individual asset.
Tracking conformance progress is not optional for organizations that take accessibility seriously. It is the mechanism that turns a one-time audit into an ongoing program. Without it, remediation efforts lose momentum and conformance claims lose credibility.
Contact Accessibility Tracker to see how the platform maps audit data to real conformance progress.