What Makes a Website “Accessible Enough”? Understanding Practical Accessibility Goals
“What’s a good accessibility score for our website?”
I hear this question at least twice a week. It’s usually followed by a hopeful look—as if I’m about to give them a magic number that means they’re done and can move on.
I wish it were that simple.
The truth is, asking “what’s a good accessibility score” is a bit like asking “how healthy should I be?” The answer depends on your starting point, your resources, and the people you’re trying to serve.
The Myth of Perfect Accessibility
Let’s start with the uncomfortable truth: the goal is always zero violations. Every accessibility barrier potentially excludes someone from using your website. That’s the ideal we’re working toward.
But here’s the reality: if you’re running a complex WordPress site with dozens of plugins, third-party integrations, and years of legacy content, achieving zero violations overnight isn’t just difficult—it’s often impossible.
I’ve worked with WordPress sites since the platform launched in 2003. I’ve seen sites built on 15-year-old themes, running plugins that haven’t been updated since 2017, and integrating with payment processors or booking systems that are completely out of the site owner’s control.
You can’t always fix everything immediately. But you can always make progress.
Understanding What the Numbers Actually Mean
At Insi, we use an industry-standard testing framework to check sites against WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards—the current benchmark for legal compliance. Our scans check for both critical violations and best practices, rating pages from 0 to 100:
- Under 25: Critical – Multiple severe barriers that prevent access for many users
- 25-49: Poor – Significant issues that create frustrating experiences
- 50-75: Good – Site is usable but has room for improvement
- 75+: Excellent – Minor issues remain, but most users can navigate successfully
But here’s what makes these scores actually useful: we don’t just give you a number and walk away.
Every issue in an Insi scan is classified by severity (critical, minor, or potential) and categorized by type (navigation, design, content, etc.). This combination gives you both the quick understanding—”where do we stand?”—and the actionable detail—”what matters most?”
This beats the approach of most automated tools, which either dump hundreds of uncategorized violations on you or reduce everything to a pass/fail. You need to know both the big picture and the specific problems.
Why Automated Testing Can’t Do It Alone
Automated scanning tools—including Insi’s—can catch a lot of accessibility problems. We can detect missing alt text, color contrast failures, keyboard navigation issues, and dozens of other technical violations.
But automated tools can’t tell if your alt text is actually helpful. They can’t evaluate if your navigation makes logical sense. They can’t assess whether your forms are genuinely easy to understand.
That’s why manual testing still matters. Real people using assistive technologies will always catch things that code analysis misses.
At Insi, we use virtual browser technology that simulates how users with disabilities actually experience website content. It’s more sophisticated than simple code scanning, but even we’re clear: automated testing finds the technical issues. Manual testing evaluates the experience.
Different Sites, Different Standards
Here’s something that often surprises clients: accessibility expectations vary significantly across industries and audiences.
A federal government website serving veterans with disabilities has different obligations—and different stakes—than a small bakery’s online ordering form. Both should be accessible. But the government site needs to meet stricter standards because of legal requirements and because it serves a population more likely to include people with disabilities.
This doesn’t mean any site gets a pass. It means your priorities and timelines should reflect your audience and your resources.
Balancing Budgets with Reality
I’ve talked to nonprofit organizations running on shoestring budgets who desperately want to serve their communities better. I’ve also talked to companies spending millions on marketing who somehow can’t find the budget for accessibility improvements.
Budget constraints are real. But they’re not an excuse for inaction.
The question isn’t “can we afford to fix everything immediately?” The question is “what can we fix this quarter, and what’s our plan for the rest?”
Maybe you can’t rebuild your entire site right now. But you can:
- Fix critical issues on your most-visited pages
- Ensure all new content meets accessibility standards
- Create a remediation roadmap for legacy content
- Address third-party integrations one at a time
Progress beats perfection. Movement beats paralysis.
The WordPress Plugin Problem
WordPress powers 43% of all websites. It’s an incredibly powerful platform. It’s also a platform where accessibility often lives or dies based on the plugins you’re using.
You might have a perfectly accessible custom theme, but if your contact form plugin, your booking system, or your e-commerce solution has accessibility barriers, your site has accessibility barriers.
Some of these plugins can be swapped out. Some can be customized. And some—particularly if they’re connecting to external systems you don’t control—might require workarounds or even fundamental rebuilds.
This is why I tell clients: accessibility isn’t a one-time project. It’s an ongoing practice. Your site changes. Plugins update (or don’t). New content gets added. Third-party integrations shift.
The goal isn’t to achieve perfect accessibility once. It’s to continuously improve and maintain accessibility over time.
What “Good Enough” Actually Looks Like
So what’s a realistic answer when someone asks about a “good accessibility score”?
Here’s what I tell them:
Short term: Fix critical issues immediately. If your score is under 50, you have serious barriers that are actively preventing people from using your site. Make those your priority.
Medium term: Aim for 75+. At this level, your site is usable for most people, even if it’s not perfect. You’ve addressed the major barriers and you’re into the territory of ongoing refinement.
Long term: Keep pushing toward zero violations. Not because you’ll necessarily get there—though you might—but because that continuous improvement mindset is what keeps accessibility from backsliding.
And through all of this: test with real users. The score is useful. The categorized issues are actionable. But nothing replaces having someone who actually uses a screen reader try to complete a task on your site.
Accessibility Is a Practice, Not a Destination
I’ve been doing accessibility work since 2014. I’ve never seen a complex website that achieved perfect accessibility and stayed there without ongoing maintenance.
Accessibility isn’t a checkbox. It’s not a score you hit once and forget about. It’s a commitment to continuous improvement and ongoing vigilance.
The good news? You don’t need to be perfect to be helpful. A site scoring 60 with a clear improvement plan is infinitely better than a site scoring 30 with no plan at all.
So when clients ask me “what’s a good accessibility score,” here’s my real answer:
A good accessibility score is whatever your current score is, plus visible progress every quarter toward serving more people better.
Start measuring. Fix critical issues. Build a plan. Test with real users. Keep improving.
That’s what accessible enough actually looks like.
