A stable accessibility auditing environment is critical
A place to audit with no change to UI/UX/Markup is best!
3rd party accessibility auditors require "a stable auditing environment". Why? And what do they mean by "stable"?
Although it is crucial for the auditing environment to be up and reachable, in this context, a "stable environment" isn't about up-time.
A stable environment for an accessibility auditor means:
An environment that doesn't change. No UI/UX changes. No changes to the markup. Not for the duration of the audit at any rate!
The environment shouldn't be hidden behind VPN, unless you are able to provide company VPN access promptly. Although this really isn't about stability, but accessibility. And not the "accessibility for disabled users", but just plain old "can I get to it".
Confusing, I know!
Anyway! Why do auditors need to have no changes to the UI/UX/markup for the duration of their audit?
In a nutshell, it is to ensure accurate results.
Imagine that on Day One of the audit, the auditor finds a contrast issue. The visuals of the page are all in yellows and blues. The auditor takes some time to write a ticket about the defect. On Day Five, the page's colors change to reds and greens. There are still contrast issues. But they aren't the same. The ticket written on day one needs to be redone. The screenshots are no longer appropriate. Maybe the types of contrast issues are different as well.
Then at the end of the audit, a colleague goes through to conduct quality assurance on the finding. And lo and behold, the color scheme changed, again, after the ticket was already re-written. The QA person sends the ticket back to the auditor to verify and update.
This is just one example of what can go wrong.
Imagine if in the month or so it takes to audit the site, you've pushed changes to the platform twice a week. Sometimes it's minor stuff. Sometimes it's changing the whole color scheme and the logos. Sometimes you've included some new complex interactions like a custom drop-down or a date picker.
You cannot rely on the results you'll get out of that 3rd party audit. But also, the audit scheduled to take a month might well take 6 weeks.
You've decreased the quality of results. And you've increased your costs.
Sure - it's hard to find an environment that isn't receiving changes continually. And spinning off a server can be costly.
What's more costly though? Is it dedicated an environment for accessibility auditing? Or is it paying for an often expensive accessibility audit that you can't trust and can't use?