Server-Side vs Client-Side Tracking: Which Is Right for Your Website?

Absolutely. Client-side tracking captures valuable on-page behaviours, such as clicks or form field interactions, that server-side tracking alone can’t provide. This is why a hybrid approach is recommended.

Hybrid setups log an event both client-side and server-side, using the same unique event ID. Platforms like Google and Meta then de-duplicate the events, ensuring you don’t double-count conversions while still gaining richer data.

The biggest risks include misconfigurations that cause duplicate conversions, missing identifiers that break attribution, and mishandling of consent or personal data. These can be avoided with proper setup and governance.

Server-side tracking can actually improve privacy. It gives businesses full control over what data is collected and shared, and personal information (like emails or phone numbers) can be hashed before leaving your server.

Not exactly. Server-side tracking can reduce reliance on cookies by passing identifiers through secure channels, but it still often works alongside first-party cookies to capture session and user data.

If you’re seeing discrepancies in your analytics, heavy traffic from Safari/iOS, or you rely on accurate PPC reporting, server-side or hybrid tracking is worth considering. A digital audit can highlight whether it’s the right move for you.

If you sell or support EU facing products or services, the European Accessibility Act increases expectations on accessibility from 2025. Even where your legal duties are limited, buyers will push for accessible experiences and suppliers that can show credible testing. Use WCAG 2.2 AA as your baseline, document conformance, and pilot outcome based reporting for high risk journeys to demonstrate progress.

Ask for WCAG 2.2 AA as a contractual minimum and require outcome based reporting on defined journeys. Request evidence of accessible patterns, labelling and assistive technology checks in their definition of done. Agree how they will scope evaluations by views and processes. If scoring is adopted later, ensure their approach can map results into any new model without reworking the fundamentals.

Report by journey and impact, not only by page count or criteria ticked. Show which flows improved, which critical errors remain and how many customers are affected. Tie defects to revenue, support cost or regulatory risk. Include trend lines so leaders see progress month to month. Keep an appendix that maps findings to WCAG 2.2 AA and note how your approach aligns with WCAG 3.0 direction.

State that you target WCAG 2.2 AA, outline current conformance, list known issues with timelines, and explain how users can request alternatives or support. Add a brief note that you are piloting outcome based reporting on priority journeys to align with emerging WCAG 3.0 direction. Update the statement after each significant release and make sure support teams know how to respond to accessibility requests.

Start with your highest traffic or highest risk journeys. Fix easy wins that tools flag, then run short, guided checks for keyboard, focus and announcements. Use design system components with accessible defaults and add checks to pull requests. Schedule a lightweight user session with one or two assistive technology users each quarter. Track critical errors and celebrate reductions to keep momentum.

Yes. A well maintained design system turns fixes into reusable patterns, which reduces defects across products. Document accessible variants, required labels, error messaging and focus behaviour for each component. Add example code and test notes. When teams adopt outcome based reporting, the design system gives a shared toolkit that aligns engineering, content and design with what actually helps users complete tasks.

Track the number of critical errors on key journeys, time to resolution and regression rates after releases. Include assistive technology test coverage and pass rates for keyboard and focus. Add outcome metrics that matter to the business, such as conversion rate for accessible flows or reduced support contacts about blocked tasks. Show trends over time so improvement is visible and funding decisions are easier.

Editors can unlock quick gains with headings, descriptive link text, alt text for meaningful images and clear error messages. Provide templates that enforce structure. Use plain language and avoid images of text. When creating carousels or tables, check keyboard and screen reader behaviour. Include accessibility in briefs for agencies. Good content practice improves SEO, clarity and accessibility at the same time.

Allocate budget for remediation of 2.2 AA issues on priority journeys, accessibility training across roles, and at least one assisted user research session. Fund improvements to your design system and CI checks. If you rely on vendors, include time for outcome based reporting and journey based audits. This mix reduces risk now and positions you to map results into a WCAG 3.0 model later.

List the start and end points of each key journey, then identify the views involved, such as product list, product details, basket and checkout. Define what success looks like for users, including error recovery. Choose representative test data and assistive technology. Run rule based checks first, then guided manual tests and short user sessions. Report defects by step with severity and customer impact.