Content Accessibility and Heading Structure Audit
Alt text gets checked and added consistently across the image library, but heading structure — whether an article's H2s and H3s actually nest logically or jump erratically from an H2 straight to an H4 because a writer picked heading levels based on visual size rather than document structure — goes unchecked, which breaks navigation for anyone using a screen reader to jump between sections by heading level. Reading level goes similarly unmonitored, so a piece meant for a general consumer audience gets written at a reading level that assumes background knowledge or vocabulary a meaningful share of the actual audience doesn't have, quietly excluding readers the content was meant to reach.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 3-5 hrs per audit cycle in manual accessibility and readability review.
How the automation works
We check every published article's heading structure for logical hierarchy — no skipped levels, headings used for actual document structure rather than visual styling — flagging violations that break screen reader navigation even though they look fine visually to a sighted reader. Reading level is scored against a standard readability metric and checked against the target audience's expected reading level for that content type, flagging content that's either needlessly complex for a general audience or, less commonly, oversimplified for content meant to serve a specialized, expert readership. Both checks run across the existing library, not just new drafts, since accessibility gaps accumulate in published content the same way any other content-quality issue does when nothing's actively checking for them.
Process flow
- 01
Scheduled content library scan trigger
Published content is scanned on a recurring basis for heading structure and reading level, covering the full library rather than only new drafts going through active editorial review.
- 02
Check heading hierarchy for logical nesting ai
Heading levels are checked for logical, sequential nesting — no skipped levels, headings reflecting actual document structure — flagging violations invisible to a sighted reader relying on visual styling but broken for screen reader navigation.
- 03
Score reading level against target audience ai
Content is scored against a standard readability metric and compared to the expected reading level for its content type and target audience, flagging content that's meaningfully more complex or simple than intended.
- 04
Prioritize by traffic and audience impact ai
Flagged articles are prioritized by traffic volume and audience relevance, so high-visibility pages with real accessibility impact get fixed ahead of low-traffic archive content.
- 05
Accessibility and readability audit report output
A report lists flagged heading structure and reading level issues with specific, actionable detail — which heading level was skipped, what the current versus target reading level is — for editorial correction.
Inputs
- Published content library
- Content type and target audience mapping
- Standard readability scoring methodology
- Article traffic or visibility data
Outputs
- Heading hierarchy violation flags
- Reading level scores against target audience
- Traffic-prioritized fix list
- Recurring accessibility and readability audit report
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- Heading levels chosen for visual size rather than document structure — using an H2 purely because it looks like the right size in the design, regardless of its actual position in the content hierarchy — is a genuinely common pattern that a purely visual review won't catch, since it looks correct to a sighted reader even when it's structurally broken for a screen reader.
- Reading level scoring based purely on sentence length and syllable count can misjudge genuinely technical content that's appropriately complex for its expert audience as 'too difficult,' when the actual target readership expects and benefits from that level of precision and vocabulary — the target reading level needs to match the actual intended audience, not a universal simplicity standard applied uniformly.
- A reading level flagged as too simple for its content type can sometimes reflect a deliberate, appropriate choice for genuinely broad-audience content rather than a quality problem, so flags should prompt a review against intended audience, not an automatic assumption that simpler is always worse or more complex is always better.
- Fixing heading hierarchy by simply relabeling heading tags without also reviewing whether the underlying content structure actually makes logical sense can technically satisfy the hierarchy check while leaving content that's still organizationally confusing — the fix needs to address genuine structure, not just correct tag labels applied to an unchanged, poorly organized outline.
Frequently asked questions
How is this different from checking image alt text?
Alt text addresses image accessibility specifically; this covers document structure (heading hierarchy for screen reader navigation) and reading level, which are separate accessibility and usability dimensions that alt text checks don't touch.
Does it flag genuinely technical content as 'too complex' incorrectly?
Reading level is checked against the expected level for that specific content type and target audience, so appropriately complex expert-level content isn't flagged the same way as general-audience content written at an unnecessarily difficult reading level.
Can this fix heading structure automatically?
It flags the specific violations for editorial correction, since fixing heading hierarchy well requires understanding the content's actual logical structure, not just reassigning tag labels.
Does this check meet WCAG compliance standards?
It checks against common heading hierarchy and readability best practices that align with WCAG guidance, though full compliance assessment for a specific standard or jurisdiction should be verified against the applicable requirement directly.