Accessible Content: Training for Your Editorial Team

A technical audit is a snapshot. It checks the state of a website at a given moment and delivers a sound finding - but it does not preserve that state. As soon as the editorial team adds content again, the site changes daily: new articles, new product images, new PDF downloads, updated landing pages. Each of these steps can introduce a new barrier without anyone noticing. The WebAIM Million Report (2025) shows that 94.8 percent (WebAIM Million, 2025) of the home pages analyzed had at least one automatically detectable WCAG failure - and those are only the machine-measurable errors. An automated scan often does not even catch editorially caused problems such as unsuitable alt texts or poor link texts.

The most common error classes have been stable for years. Six error categories accounted for 96.4 percent (WebAIM Million, 2024) of all automatically detected failures, and these six have remained the same over five years (WebAIM Million, 2024). A large share of them does not arise in the code but in the content: missing alternative texts, low contrast in self-designed graphics, empty or ambiguous link texts and skipped heading levels. These points lie precisely in the hands of the editorial team. Addressing them here closes a large, easily measurable block of findings - and does so durably, because the content is not created incorrectly in the first place. There is also a simple question of volume: the more content an editorial team produces, the more opportunities there are to introduce a barrier. Over a year, an active website publishes hundreds of images, links and documents; a single unclean routine multiplies accordingly. Training therefore starts not with the individual correction but with the routine from which the content arises.

The legal framework reinforces this point. The benchmark is the European standard EN 301 549, which builds on WCAG; for many public bodies the German BITV 2.0 additionally applies, whose conformity is assessed in the structured BIK test procedure. What they all share is that they evaluate not the one-time state but the ongoing accessibility of the content. A review following the BIK procedure looks at real pages - and real pages change with every editorial step. Whoever only secures the technology of the templates but leaves the content to itself meets the demand of these standards on paper only.

Editorial accessibility can be narrowed down to a few recurring fields of action. Whoever masters these four areas covers most of what can go wrong in daily editing. Each area maps to specific WCAG success criteria that, through EN 301 549, are also decisive for the BFSG.

These four fields are not equally difficult. Alt texts and link texts are quickly taught and immediately applicable in any editorial team. A clean heading structure requires a little more awareness of document logic, because many content systems tempt editors to choose headings by appearance rather than by meaning. Accessible PDFs and easy-to-read language are the most demanding areas and often concern dedicated roles such as design or specialist editing. Training should therefore differentiate by role rather than give everyone the same workload - more on this below.

Most editorial barriers arise from routine, not from ill will. An image is inserted quickly, the alt field stays empty because it looks optional. A link is placed on the nearest word, often on "here". A subheading is formatted as H4 because the font size fits, even though an H2 is meant in terms of content. The WebAIM Million Report (2025) counted 1,088,074 (WebAIM Million, 2025) cases of skipped heading levels alone - statistically every twenty-third heading. Empty or ambiguous link texts appeared on 13.7 percent (WebAIM Million, 2025) of pages, with an average of 6.8 (WebAIM Million, 2025) problematic links per affected page. Such mistakes are rarely isolated: they arise from templates, habits and time pressure and then cluster on the same page. That is exactly why a rule applied at the source works more strongly than any later individual correction.

Why these points matter so much is shown by the behaviour of those affected. In the WebAIM Screen Reader User Survey #10 (2024), 60.8 percent (WebAIM, 2024) of users said they primarily orient themselves on a page via headings. Whoever uses headings only as a styling device takes away these people's most important tool for orientation. At the same time, in the same survey only 33.4 percent (WebAIM, 2024) of people with disabilities perceived the progress of web accessibility as positive - an indication that reality on many sites lags behind the aspiration. We go deeper into the detailed technique in the article on accessible images and alt text.

An important insight is that automated testing tools detect these editorial weaknesses only in part. A scanner reliably reports a missing alt attribute but cannot judge whether an existing alt text hits its purpose or whether a link text matches its destination. A heading that is wrong in terms of content but technically present also goes undetected. Responsibility therefore shifts from pure technology towards editorial judgement: this is exactly the judgement a training session conveys, because it brings the question "What information is lost if this content is not accessible?" into daily work. Tools provide the quantitative overview, people decide on quality.

Beyond the technical basics, editorial accessibility also covers the linguistic and document-related level. Easy-to-read language and plain language are two different concepts: easy-to-read language follows fixed rules with short sentences, one thought per sentence and explanatory notes, while plain language is a less strict but likewise comprehensibility-oriented variant. For certain public bodies easy-to-read language is mandatory; in the private sector under the BFSG, comprehensible language is mainly a matter of reach and service quality. For people with learning difficulties, low reading literacy or a non-native-language background, comprehensible language noticeably lowers the hurdle - and even practised readers benefit from clear, short phrasing. We teach both approaches in a hands-on way in our training for editorial teams.

Accessible PDFs are a problem area of their own, because many downloads are exported from office programs without tags. Common shortcomings are missing or incorrect tags, missing alternative texts, poor contrast, an unclear reading order and unlabelled form fields. These points often concern roles outside the classic web editorial team, such as the production of annual reports or forms. Working cleanly here avoids that, of all things, important documents become a barrier. What a complete review process looks like is described in our WCAG audit, which brings together technical and editorial aspects.

Effective training does not pour the same content over every employee but tailors itself to the respective task. An editor who maintains articles daily needs different priorities than a designer or a manager responsible for an area. This differentiation keeps the training relevant and stops it being felt as an abstract compulsory exercise. Whoever books only an abstract standard webinar often fails to reach the editorial team where the mistakes actually arise - namely in the specific content system with its input masks and templates. Hands-on training therefore works as far as possible on the real system and the organisation's real content rather than on generic examples. From supporting 50+ (project experience) projects, the following division of roles has proven useful.

In addition to role-based training, a recurring rhythm is needed. Onboarding sessions catch new staff before incorrect routines set in. Half-yearly or yearly refreshers keep knowledge current, especially as standards evolve - WCAG 2.2 now comprises 87 (W3C/WAI) success criteria, of which 55 (W3C/WAI) are relevant for Level AA. A clear cadence prevents the level from declining between two audits. This interlocking of knowledge and process is the core of our services.

Knowledge alone evaporates if daily work does not support it. That is why training routinely includes the question of how accessibility is built into the editorial process. A concise, comprehensible editorial guideline, mandatory fields and markers in the content system and regular spot checks all help. A mandatory field for the alt text with a decorative option prevents images going online without any alternative. A short checklist before publishing catches the most common mistakes before they go live. It is important that these aids stay low-threshold: a guideline no one reads, or a check that costs too much time, will be bypassed in day-to-day work. It has proven useful to condense the most important rules onto a single page and make them visible where the content is created.

Spot checks should combine both routes. An automated scan reliably detects missing attributes but cannot judge whether an alt text is meaningful or a link text matches its destination. Only a manual inspection, ideally with a screen reader, uncovers such content-level weaknesses. A list of known barriers belongs transparently in the accessibility statement with a feedback mechanism as long as individual points are still open - that is more honest and more legally robust than concealment. A meaningful spot check need not be elaborate: simply going through the most recently published pages with the keyboard and a screen reader reliably uncovers typical patterns. What matters is regularity, because a single look is not enough with continuously growing content. Tying the spot check to fixed points in time - for example quarterly or after larger campaigns - keeps the effort small and the effect high.

The business case is clear. In Germany there live 7.9M (Federal Statistical Office, 2024) severely disabled people, which is 9.3 percent (Federal Statistical Office, 2024) of the population; worldwide around 2.2B (WHO, 2023) people have a vision impairment. Accessible content reaches these audiences and, as a side effect, improves comprehensibility and discoverability for everyone. A trained editorial team is therefore not a cost factor but the lever that keeps the one-time audit investment effective for years. Whoever wants to weigh cost and benefit will find the arguments in our look at the cost and ROI of an accessibility audit.