Loading lesson
Free resources and practical tools that help you assess content quality, accessibility, and SEO considerations as part of your regular content workflow, without requiring technical expertise.
Most accessibility and SEO tools are designed for developers and technical specialists, creating a gap for content editors who want to assess and improve their work but don't need comprehensive technical audits. The most useful tools for content editors are those that highlight issues you can actually address through content decisions - clearer headings, better link text, improved alt text, and logical content structure.
Effective tools for content editors focus on identifying problems rather than providing technical solutions. They help you spot missing alt text, confusing heading hierarchies, or unclear link descriptions - issues you can fix by improving your content rather than changing code. The goal isn't to become a technical expert, but to develop reliable ways to catch content quality problems before they affect your users.
Understanding which tools provide actionable feedback for content editors helps you build sustainable quality assurance practices that fit into your existing workflow rather than requiring completely new technical skills or overwhelming amounts of additional work.
Browser extensions offer the most practical approach for content editors because they work within your normal browsing and content review process. These tools can check pages as you work on them, providing immediate feedback about potential improvements.
WAVE (Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool) provides visual feedback about accessibility issues directly on web pages. When you activate WAVE on a page, it adds icons and indicators that highlight missing alt text, heading hierarchy problems, and unclear link text. The visual approach makes it easy to see where issues occur without needing to interpret technical reports.
WAVE particularly excels at showing heading structure problems that affect navigation. It displays heading levels visually, making it obvious when headings skip levels (H2 followed by H4) or when the hierarchy doesn't match the content organisation. For content editors, this visual feedback is much more useful than technical accessibility reports.
Headings Map browser extension creates a sidebar showing your page's heading structure as an outline. This helps you see whether your headings create a logical table of contents that would help users navigate efficiently. If the heading outline doesn't make sense as a summary of your content, your headings probably need improvement.
Modern browsers include accessibility and performance checking tools that don't require installing extensions. These built-in tools provide reliable feedback about content quality issues without adding complexity to your workflow.
Chrome DevTools Lighthouse includes accessibility auditing that identifies many issues content editors can address. While Lighthouse is primarily designed for developers, its accessibility section highlights problems like missing alt text, empty links, and heading hierarchy issues that content editors can fix directly.
To use Lighthouse for content checking, open Chrome DevTools (F12 on Windows, or Cmd+Option+I on a Mac), go to the Lighthouse tab, select "Accessibility," and run the audit. Lighthouse doesn't rank issues by severity, so focus on the failed checks that relate to content - such as images missing alt text, links with no text, or headings out of order - rather than technical implementation. Lighthouse's separate SEO category also flags generic link text like "click here." (If you want severity ratings like "Critical" and "Serious," the axe DevTools extension provides them.)
Firefox Accessibility Inspector provides similar functionality with a slightly different interface. It can highlight accessibility issues visually on the page and provides explanations that help content editors understand what needs improvement.
Safari Web Inspector includes accessibility auditing tools that work similarly to Chrome and Firefox options. All major browsers now include basic accessibility checking that can help content editors identify issues they can address through content improvements.
Content accessibility goes beyond technical compliance to include clarity and comprehensibility. Several tools help assess whether content is written at appropriate complexity levels for your intended audience.
Hemingway Editor highlights complex sentences, passive voice, and difficult words that might make content harder to understand. While not specifically designed for accessibility, Hemingway helps identify writing that could create barriers for people with cognitive processing differences or those reading in a second language.
Copy and paste your content into Hemingway Editor to get immediate feedback about sentence complexity and reading level. Aim for clarity rather than artificially simple language - the goal is removing unnecessary complexity that doesn't serve your content goals.
Microsoft Word includes built-in readability statistics (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) that can help you assess content complexity. Google Docs doesn't offer readability scores, so you'd need to paste your text into a tool like Hemingway. While Word's statistics aren't as sophisticated as dedicated tools, they're convenient for checking content during the writing process.
SEO tools for content editors should focus on content decisions rather than technical optimisation. The most useful tools help you assess whether your content effectively targets relevant search queries and provides comprehensive information for your intended audience.
Google Search Console provides insights about how people find your content and which search queries bring visitors to your pages. Understanding actual search behaviour helps you assess whether your content addresses real user needs and whether your headings and content align with how people search for information.
Google's "People Also Ask" sections in search results provide insight into related questions and topics that people commonly search for. Reviewing these suggestions can help you identify gaps in your content or opportunities to provide more comprehensive information.
Several free tools provide accessibility feedback that content editors can act on, focusing on issues that don't require technical implementation to address.
Color Oracle is a free desktop app that simulates colour blindness, helping you understand how your content appears to people with different types of colour vision differences. Chrome DevTools offers a similar built-in option under Rendering > "Emulate vision deficiencies." Both can help you assess whether information conveyed through colour is also available through other visual cues.
The most effective approach to using content quality tools involves integrating simple checks into your existing workflow rather than trying to use every available tool comprehensively. Focus on tools that provide actionable feedback you can implement through content improvements.
Develop a rotation system where you use different tools for different types of content review. Use readability tools during writing, accessibility extensions during content review, and SEO tools during content planning.
Focus on patterns rather than perfection - use tools to identify common issues across your content that might indicate systematic improvements needed in your content creation process.
Prioritise based on user impact - address issues that create significant barriers for users before focusing on minor optimisations that tools might flag.
Document what you learn - keep notes about common issues you discover so you can prevent them in future content rather than repeatedly fixing the same problems.
Copy and paste this to ChatGPT when you're ready for feedback:
I've been completing some questions that have been presented to me as part of an SEO course. I'm currently answering questions for a section titled "Tools and browser extensions to help without needing to code". Please check my answers and let me know if I've understood the key ideas correctly. My responses are below.
1. What makes a tool useful for content editors, as opposed to developers?
2. How can the WAVE browser extension help content editors improve their content?
3. Which approach better demonstrates sustainable tool usage for content editors?
4. What's the difference between using Hemingway Editor for accessibility purposes versus traditional grammar checking? What specific barriers might complex writing create for users?
5. A colleague suggests that content editors shouldn't worry about accessibility tools because "that's what developers are for." How would you explain why content editors benefit from using basic accessibility checking tools themselves?
6. Consider this scenario: Your organisation's content team has started using accessibility checking tools but finds that different tools flag different issues, and some team members are spending hours trying to address every single recommendation. This has led to frustration and arguments about which tools are "correct." Analyse what's going wrong with this approach and propose a strategy for using tools effectively without becoming overwhelmed by competing recommendations.