Violations vs recommendations — what you must fix, and what's worth fixing

Updated: 2026-06-15

The EAAsy scanner splits results into two groups. Understanding the difference tells you what you must fix to meet the EAA, and what improves your site beyond the minimum.

Two groups of results

After a scan you'll see WCAG violations and recommendations (best practice) shown separately. The split is deliberate: the first group is a legal obligation and counts towards the /100 score; the second is good practice that improves accessibility and UX but is not a compliance requirement.

WCAG violations — a legal requirement

A violation is a failed WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 success criterion at level AA — what the EAA requires (via the EN 301 549 standard). Examples: an image without alternative text, a form field without a label, text contrast that is too low, a button without an accessible name. These items lower the score and should be fixed first — they are what creates sanction risk.

Recommendations (best practice) — quality beyond the minimum

Recommendations are rules the axe-core engine flags as best practice rather than as a WCAG criterion. Examples: a missing main landmark, illogical heading order beyond the strict requirement, duplicate id attributes, redundant adjacent links. We show them separately and do NOT count them in the score — because they are not a legal obligation.

Why we show them separately

If we lumped everything together, you wouldn't know what is mandatory and what is optional. Separating them is honest: the /100 score and sanction risk concern only WCAG violations, while recommendations are a list of improvements for later.

What to fix first

The order is simple: WCAG violations first (especially the highest sanction-risk ones — forms, checkout, keyboard navigation, contrast), then recommendations. Fixing violations closes the EAA requirement; fixing recommendations raises quality, accessibility and often SEO and conversion too.

← Knowledge base