What WCAG 2.2 AA remediation actually involves

What automated tools do and do not find

Automated checkers reliably find missing alternative text, missing form labels, empty links and buttons, some contrast failures, and invalid ARIA. That is genuine value and it is where any assessment should begin.

What they cannot evaluate is whether the alternative text is correct, whether the focus order matches the visual order, whether a custom component behaves the way a screen reader user expects, whether an error message is announced, or whether the page still works at 400% zoom. Those require a person. Treating a clean scan as conformance is the most common mistake in this area.

Why overlays do not resolve the problem

Overlay widgets inject a script that attempts to correct accessibility issues in the browser after the page loads. They do not change the underlying markup, they can conflict with the assistive technology a person already uses, and they cannot repair a component whose behavior is wrong.

Source-level remediation fixes the page everyone receives, including users of tools the overlay never anticipated. It is also the only version of the work that survives a redesign.

The manual review that carries the weight

A defensible review covers keyboard-only operation of every interactive element, visible focus and logical focus order, reflow at narrow widths and high zoom, heading structure and landmarks, form labelling and error handling, contrast in real component states including hover and disabled, motion and animation preferences, and media alternatives.

Each finding should be confirmed by a person before it is reported. Automated output presented as confirmed failure is how remediation budgets get spent on issues that were never real.

What a completed engagement leaves behind

The deliverable is not a score. It is a scoped inventory of what was assessed, a finding ledger with the confirmation status of each item, source-level fixes, retest evidence covering both automated and manual checks, an accessibility statement that describes the target and known limitations honestly, and guidance for keeping the work from regressing.

Known limitations matter. A statement claiming full conformance with no boundaries is less credible than one that names what has not been covered yet.

A target is not a legal certification

Scoping work toward WCAG 2.2 Level AA is a technical target. It is not a legal opinion, a certification, or a guarantee that no user will encounter a barrier. Legal conclusions require the appropriate counsel or an authorized assessor for the buyer's context.

Any vendor offering certified compliance from a scan is describing something the underlying standard does not support.