I have never liked accessibility reviews that only happen at the end of a project.
By that point, the design has usually been approved, the templates have been built and the content has started settling into place. Any problem discovered late feels more expensive because it interrupts work people thought was finished. That does not encourage better accessibility. It encourages people to see accessibility as a problem that arrives too late.
I would rather make accessibility part of normal development work. Not as a grand separate exercise, and not as a box-ticking routine, but as something that sits inside the decisions already being made. The earlier the issue appears, the easier it is to fix properly.
Testing The Ordinary Paths
I usually start with the ordinary paths through a website. Can someone open the menu with a keyboard? Can they see where focus is? Can they understand the page structure from headings? Can a form be completed without relying on placeholder text? Can an error message be understood when it appears?
Those checks are not exotic. They are basic interactions that many websites still get wrong because they are not tested in the way people actually use them. A page can look finished in a browser window and still be difficult for someone using a keyboard, screen reader or zoomed layout.
The value of these checks is that they reveal practical problems. A missing label, poor focus order or vague button text is not an abstract compliance issue. It is a point where someone may be blocked from using the website.
Accessibility Is A Content Issue Too
Developers cannot solve everything in code. Content decisions affect accessibility constantly. Headings need to describe the structure of the page. Link text needs to make sense out of context. Alt text should help when an image carries meaning, and be left empty when the image is decorative.
This is where editors need guidance. If the CMS gives someone an image field, they need to understand what the alt text field is for. If a block pattern includes several heading levels, the editor needs enough structure that they do not accidentally create a confusing page outline.
I think good CMS design can help here. The editing experience should encourage better content decisions by default. It should not rely on every editor remembering accessibility advice from a training call months earlier.
Small Checks Repeated Often
The best accessibility process I have used is not dramatic. It is a set of small checks repeated throughout the project. Keyboard testing during component development. Colour contrast checks during design. Form label checks before templates are handed over. Content structure checks when pages are populated.
That rhythm prevents accessibility from becoming a surprise at the end. It also makes the work less intimidating. Teams are more likely to fix issues when they are part of normal review, rather than when they appear as a long report after the project feels complete.
This does not remove the value of a full audit where one is needed. It just means the audit should not be the first time anyone seriously thinks about accessibility.
Retrospective Thoughts
The more I work on websites, the more I think accessibility belongs in the everyday habits of design, development and content work. It is not a specialist concern that can be attached later without consequences. It affects how pages are structured, how interfaces respond and how people understand what to do next.
I do not think every team needs to become expert overnight. I do think every team can make accessibility visible earlier. That is usually where better work starts, because the website becomes easier to use before the mistakes have had time to harden.