DIY usability testing tools like UserTesting have revolutionized the way we gather feedback – but they aren’t a silver bullet for every evaluation need. When it comes to accessibility testing, many teams discover too late that these platforms weren’t built to fully support compliance-focused or inclusive design goals.

Lack of Accessibility-Specific Test Features

Most DIY testing tools prioritize volume over precision. They help gather quick reactions from everyday users, which is great for general UX testing. However, they typically lack built-in tools to evaluate accessibility standards such as WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). Issues like screen reader compatibility, logical keyboard navigation patterns, or semantic HTML structure are often untested or left to chance.

Testers May Not Represent Diverse Ability Groups

Accessibility requires feedback from people who experience the web differently – not just average users. Yet many self-serve platforms rely on general consumer panels. This means potential issues specific to users who rely on assistive technologies may go unnoticed.

No Built-In Guidance or Validation

Unless your internal team has expert-level accessibility knowledge, it’s easy to set up tests in UserTesting that overlook critical issues. Without professional intervention, test scripts may miss important areas such as:

• How a user navigates a site using only a keyboard
• If contrast ratios meet accessibility requirements
• Whether alt text is meaningful or even present

In short, DIY tools are great at collecting user sentiment, but not necessarily at diagnosing the technical or structural aspects that affect accessible design.

Why This Matters

If these blind spots go unchecked, businesses risk alienating customers, failing audits, or creating frustrating experiences for users with disabilities. For teams operating under lean budgets or with limited accessibility training, that’s a high price to pay.

That’s where SIVO’s On Demand Talent becomes crucial. Our experienced insights professionals understand both accessibility best practices and how to leverage DIY tools like UserTesting effectively. They can step in to script better tests, interpret findings accurately, and guide your team toward lasting improvements in inclusive design – all without the delays or overhead of traditional consulting models.

Even well-intentioned teams often encounter roadblocks when using DIY platforms to test accessibility. Below are some of the most frequent – and often hidden – issues that arise during user testing on tools like UserTesting, along with some ideas on how to catch and address them early.

Keyboard Navigation Isn’t Tested Properly

Many accessibility issues begin with how someone navigates a digital experience using a keyboard alone. DIY tools often don’t match testers with the right assistive needs, and without a properly scoped test script, these navigation obstacles may go unreported.

For example, if you’re evaluating a checkout form, can a tester really move field-by-field using just the Tab key? If interactive elements (like dropdowns or modals) aren’t keyboard-operable, that’s a major problem – but unless you ask specifically for it, this type of testing is rarely performed by default.

Color Contrast Isn’t Observable in UX Feedback Loops

Color contrast issues – such as low contrast between text and background – are some of the most common accessibility errors. But unless visual impairments are present, most test participants won’t notice or report the issue. DIY tools are not built to measure contrast ratios programmatically, so they rely on human perception, which varies widely.

As a result, teams might think the design is working fine, when in fact users with visual impairments would struggle to read content clearly.

Alt Text Validation Gets Overlooked

Non-visible content like image alt text often doesn’t show up in screen recordings or participant feedback unless tests are carefully designed to spot it. Without specific protocols, many teams miss checking whether alt text exists, is relevant, or is helpful for screen reader users.

This presents a compliance issue and can hinder the experience for blind or visually impaired users – a legal risk as much as a user experience one.

Text Legibility Feedback is Too Subjective

While participants may comment on font being "hard to read," that doesn’t tell you much about the reasons behind it. Is it the size, spacing, font style, or the mix of all three? DIY test platforms rarely provide a way to dissect text clarity objectively. This vagueness makes it hard for teams to implement meaningful design changes.

Inclusive Design Flaws Go Unnoticed

Inclusive design isn’t just about compliance – it’s about considering a broad spectrum of user needs. Without expertise in accessibility or the context to ask the right questions, many inclusive design flaws (such as relying on color-only cues or requiring mouse-based interactions) aren’t picked up in DIY usability testing.

How On Demand Talent Can Help

Our On Demand Talent professionals understand these common pitfalls and know how to test inclusively and effectively – even inside tools like UserTesting. By bringing in an experienced accessibility expert, you can:

• Write screen reader- and keyboard-focused test scripts
• Interpret and validate feedback for accessibility accuracy
• Use tech-enhanced methods to test for things like color contrast
• Guide your team in optimizing UI and UX from an accessibility lens

This kind of partnership takes the guesswork out of accessibility testing and helps your team uphold usability for all, without needing to become accessibility experts themselves.

When conducting accessibility testing in tools like UserTesting, teams often run into trouble with evaluating keyboard navigation and color contrast. These issues may seem simple on the surface, but accurately diagnosing them requires deep understanding of usability guidelines and how people with disabilities interact with digital content. DIY testing platforms aren't always equipped to surface these nuanced problems – or to interpret them correctly.

Why Keyboard Navigation Issues Are Missed

One of the most common accessibility problems in UX tools is the lack of comprehensive keyboard navigation testing. Screen reader users and individuals with motor impairments often rely solely on keyboards to interact with digital content. However, many DIY usability tests overlook this entirely since test participants may naturally use a mouse or tap-based navigation without realizing alternatives are needed for real inclusivity.

Without accessibility training, teams may not know what to look for, such as:

• Logical tab order that follows page hierarchy
• Visible focus indicators (highlight boxes or outlines)
• Interactive elements being reachable (no hidden links or buttons)

The result? Keyboard navigation issues go undetected until they cause major usability disruptions or legal compliance problems later.

Color Contrast: Why It Isn’t Always Noticed

Another common issue in accessibility testing is color contrast – especially when it impacts text clarity. DIY tools generally lack built-in contrast checkers or rely on participants’ subjective perceptions. Yet contrast problems aren’t always “visible” to those without color vision deficiencies or low vision impairments.

For example, a light gray font on a white background may seem fine to many users, but it can make a site practically unusable for someone with impaired vision. Relying only on visual design instincts or standard templates is risky.

Accessibility tools exist to measure WCAG 2.1 contrast ratios, but they don’t interpret findings in context. Understanding how combinations affect usability – or when they sacrifice functionality for aesthetic – requires expert reviews.

DIY Tools Can Guide – But Not Replace – Specialized Evaluation

Tools like UserTesting are powerful for user observations, but they weren’t built to fully diagnose accessibility breakdowns. That’s where human insight matters most. Experts know how to combine diagnostics with real use case scenarios to determine what's truly usable – not just what looks good or passes an automated check.

Inclusive design professionals play a crucial role in making sure digital experiences work for everyone – not just most people. While DIY platforms like UserTesting are great for observing real-time behavior and gathering quick user feedback, they often lack the contextual lens needed for evaluating alt text, text legibility, and how accessible design affects the full user journey.

Inclusive design goes beyond checking boxes in a compliance checklist. It’s about considering a wide spectrum of user needs from the start, including individuals with vision impairments, mobility limitations, hearing loss, or cognitive differences. Tackling this in UX testing requires both empathy and technical know-how – something that trained accessibility professionals bring to the table.

How Inclusion Experts Identify Deeper Problems

Experienced accessibility and inclusive design researchers are trained to recognize what automated tools and standard users might miss, such as:

• Alt text validation: Is it descriptive enough? Does it add value or just repeat captions?
• Hidden barriers: Are there alternative ways to complete a task beyond visuals (e.g., audio, haptic feedback)?
• Cognitive load: Is the interface simple enough for neurodivergent users without being over-simplified?

By applying inclusive design principles, these experts ensure insights from usability testing don’t just mimic the average experience – they reflect the full range of human diversity.

The Value of Inclusive Design in Market Research

Incorporating inclusive design professionals into your testing process helps prevent token efforts that overlook key demographics. They ask important questions like: Will this mobile flow work for someone using only voice commands? Does this error message carry meaning if you can’t see the screen?

This kind of perspective is hard to fake – and nearly impossible to automate. That’s why many teams now partner with skilled accessibility professionals when aiming to ensure compliance, usability, and equitable access.

For example, in a fictional retail brand case, an inclusive design specialist uncovered a shopping app’s lack of text resizing options during a UX evaluation. While the tool captured general satisfaction, only expert review spotted this key gap – which could have excluded hundreds of users with low vision.

As more companies adopt usability platforms and DIY tools like UserTesting, the need for expert guidance becomes more important – especially when it comes to accessibility testing. SIVO’s On Demand Talent gives your team flexible access to seasoned accessibility and insights professionals who close skill gaps, validate tests, and ensure the research stays true to your objectives.

Bringing Expertise Into Your DIY Workflow

You don’t have to choose between speed and quality. With On Demand Talent, you get the best of both: DIY efficiency with expert-backed accuracy. Our professionals can:

• Translate test findings into actionable accessibility improvements
• Audit UX test designs for equitable representation
• Validate accessibility tools and contrast checks
• Provide hands-on support for evaluating text clarity, keyboard navigation, alt text, and more

Whether you're a startup launching a new digital product or an enterprise optimizing for web accessibility compliance, our experts help you leverage your existing tools more effectively. We don’t reinvent the wheel – we fine-tune it to ensure it runs inclusively.

Flexible Support Without Long-Term Commitment

Hiring a full-time accessibility lead isn’t always realistic. SIVO’s On Demand Talent supports your team exactly when needed – for one round of testing, for a high-priority launch, or as a strategic partner over time. Because we move quickly, you’ll often be matched with a professional in just days – not months.

Unlike freelancers or consultants, On Demand Talent from SIVO are carefully vetted and matched based on experience, fit, and project goals. They don’t just “review” your research – they become a true extension of your team. Our network includes hundreds of roles across industries, ready to support UX testing, inclusive design, accessibility audits, and research leadership.

If your team is using platforms like UserTesting but struggling to move from identification to implementation of accessibility fixes, we’re here to bridge that gap and build longer-term research capabilities from within.