EVALUATION OF WCAG CRITERIA IN DIGITAL LEARNING PLATFORMS USING A HYBRID AUDIT APPROACH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51699/9sj10h73Keywords:
Web Accessibility, Digital Learning, Axe-Core, Google Lighthouse, Manual Testing, Digilab, WCAG Standards, Semantic Audit, User ExperienceAbstract
Ensuring digital accessibility in e-learning platforms is a primary requirement for creating equal educational opportunities for all students. This study examines the practical effectiveness of a hybrid audit approach that combines automated software tools, specifically Axe-core and Google Lighthouse, with manual keyboard testing. As a practical testing ground, a prototype of the DigiLab learning platform developed by the author was used as the research object. While automated scanners are highly useful for the rapid detection of static code errors, their technical algorithms are limited to identifying only about 20 to 25 percent of overall WCAG standard violations. Full evaluation of interactive functionality and real user experience requires dynamic testing beyond mere source code analysis, a limitation openly acknowledged by the tool developers in their official documentation. Manual testing conducted using a standard keyboard successfully revealed these hidden semantic and navigational errors that the software had overlooked. After resolving all identified issues, the platform's initial Lighthouse score increased from 68 to 95 points, while Axe-core recorded zero errors in the final audit. The experiment demonstrates that to achieve authentic digital inclusion in educational resources, automated assessments must be systematically complemented by manual human verification.
References
[1] D. Sloan, P. Gregor, P. Booth, and L. Gibson, “Auditing accessibility of UK higher education web sites,” Interacting with Computers, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 313–325, 2002.
[2] N. C. Burbules and C. A. Torres, Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2000.
[3] World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), “Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0,” 2014. [Online]. Available: W3C WCAG-EM 1.0
[4] J. Abascal, M. Arrue, I. Fajardo, N. Garay, and J. Tomás, “The use of guidelines to automatically verify Web accessibility,” Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 2004.
[5] G. Brajnik, “Beyond conformance: The role of accessibility evaluation methods,” in Web Information Systems Engineering—WISE 2008 Workshops, S. Hartmann, X. Zhou, and M. Kirchberg, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5176. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008, pp. 63–80.
[6] M. Vigo, J. Brown, and V. Conway, “Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools: Measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated tests,” in Proc. 10th Int. Cross-Disciplinary Conf. Web Accessibility (W4A), 2013, Art. no. 1, pp. 1–10.
[7] President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, “On approving the ‘Digital Uzbekistan–2030’ strategy and measures for its effective implementation,” Decree No. PF-6079, 2020. [Online]. Available: LexUZ
[8] WebAIM, “The WebAIM Million,” 2024. [Online]. Available: WebAIM Million
[9] World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2,” 2023. [Online]. Available: WCAG 2.2
[10] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9241-171:2021—Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 171: Guidance on Software Accessibility. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2021. [Online]. Available: ISO 9241-171
[11] N. N. Atabayeva, “Improving inclusive education based on digital technologies: Modern approaches and practical methods,” 2025. [Online]. Available: CyberLeninka
[12] C. Power, A. Freire, H. Petrie, and D. Swallow, “Guidelines are only guidelines: Why WCAG 2.0 is not sufficient,” in Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 2012.
[13] A. Hambley, Y. Yesilada, M. Vigo, and S. Harper, “OPTIMAL-EM: Complexity-driven clustering for optimised web accessibility evaluation,” ACM Transactions on the Web, 2026.
[14] O. Koller, O. Zargaran, H. Ney, and R. Bowden, “Deep sign: Hybrid CNN-HMM for continuous sign language recognition,” in Proc. Brit. Mach. Vis. Conf. (BMVC), 2016.
[15] A. M. Sincan and H. Y. Keles, “AUTSL: A large scale multi-modal Turkish sign language dataset and baseline methods,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 181340–181355, 2020.
