Accessibility

15 Dec

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

TL;DR.

This lecture focuses on the importance of web accessibility, providing a comprehensive guide to best practices that enhance user experience for all, including those with disabilities. It covers key areas such as semantic HTML, keyboard navigation, and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). By implementing these practices, developers can create more inclusive digital environments that cater to diverse user needs.

Main Points.

Accessibility Fundamentals:
- Understanding the significance of web accessibility for all users.
- The role of WCAG in guiding accessibility practices.
- Importance of semantic HTML for conveying meaning.
Common Accessibility Issues:
- Missing labels on inputs and buttons.
- Poor contrast ratios affecting readability.
- Interactive elements that are not keyboard accessible.
Testing and Evaluation:
- Conducting keyboard-only navigation tests.
- Using contrast checking tools for compliance.
- Implementing a quick testing checklist for accessibility.
Continuous Improvement:
- Documenting known limitations and workarounds.
- Engaging users with disabilities in the testing process.
- Fostering a culture of accessibility within organisations.

Conclusion.

Prioritising web accessibility is essential for creating inclusive digital experiences that cater to all users. By implementing best practices such as semantic HTML, effective keyboard navigation, and adhering to WCAG guidelines, developers can significantly enhance user experience and satisfaction. The commitment to accessibility not only meets legal requirements but also fosters a culture of inclusivity, ultimately benefiting businesses and society as a whole.

Key takeaways.

Web accessibility is crucial for ensuring all users can interact with digital content.
Implementing semantic HTML enhances both accessibility and SEO.
Keyboard navigation must be prioritised for users who cannot use a mouse.
Regular testing and audits are necessary to maintain accessibility standards.
Engaging users with disabilities in the testing process provides invaluable insights.
Documenting known limitations helps maintain transparency and improve future accessibility efforts.
Accessibility should be integrated into the design process from the outset.
Accessibility tools can aid in identifying issues, but manual checks are essential for comprehensive assessments.
Continuous education on accessibility standards is vital for all team members.
Fostering an inclusive culture within organisations enhances overall accessibility efforts.

Play section audio

Core accessibility.

Web accessibility is the discipline of designing and building digital experiences so people can use them regardless of disability, device, environment, or context. That includes users who rely on screen readers, those who navigate by keyboard only, people with low vision who zoom text to 200–400%, users with dyslexia who need clear structure, and even customers in temporary situations such as a broken mouse, bright sunlight, or a noisy commute. When accessibility is treated as “core” rather than “nice to have”, it stops being a late-stage patch and becomes part of how content, interface, and code are shaped from the start.

From a business viewpoint, accessibility influences conversion and retention because it reduces friction. If a checkout button cannot be focused with a keyboard, if headings do not form a reliable outline, or if images contain vital information with no description, many users simply drop off. It also supports discoverability: clean structure helps search engines understand pages, and well-described media improves how content appears in previews and results. Many regions enforce accessibility laws for certain sectors, but the practical upside is broader than compliance. The accessible web is easier to use, easier to maintain, and more resilient as sites grow and content teams change.

This section breaks down the essentials that deliver the biggest real-world gains: using meaningful elements, keeping headings ordered, implementing interactive controls correctly, providing text alternatives, and making everything operable by keyboard. Each practice reinforces the others, creating a site that feels coherent to assistive technology and predictable to humans.

Use correct elements for meaning.

Using elements for what they mean, not how they look, is one of the highest-leverage accessibility habits. Semantic HTML tells assistive technologies what something is: a heading, a navigation region, a list of items, a button that performs an action, and so on. When the structure is meaningful, screen readers can announce it accurately, keyboard users can move through it efficiently, and browsers can apply default behaviours that users already understand.

This is closely aligned with WCAG principles such as “Perceivable” and “Understandable”. A page built with the right elements becomes easier to interpret because it provides signals about hierarchy and relationship. It also reduces cognitive load: users do not need to guess whether a bold line of text is a section heading, or whether an icon is clickable, because the underlying structure makes the intent clear. On the maintenance side, semantic markup helps teams avoid “mystery meat” layouts where future edits accidentally break interaction or layout assumptions.

It also benefits SEO in a very practical way. Search engines use structure to infer what a page is about, how sections relate, and which content is primary. While accessibility and SEO are not identical goals, they overlap heavily because both reward clarity and consistency.

Semantic HTML elements.

<article>: Use for a self-contained item that could stand on its own, such as a blog post, a case study, or a forum thread. A useful check is whether it would still make sense if syndicated elsewhere or linked directly.
<section>: Use for a thematic group within a page that has a heading. It helps split long pages into logical regions, especially when content teams publish multi-topic guides.
<aside>: Use for supporting content that is related but not essential to the main flow, such as a glossary, related links, newsletter sign-up, or a pull quote. It keeps the main narrative clean while still offering depth.
<figure>: Use to bind media and meaning together, such as an image, diagram, or code screenshot with a caption. This is valuable when the caption clarifies why the media matters, not only what it shows.
<time>: Use when dates and times carry meaning, such as publishing dates, event schedules, renewal deadlines, or delivery cut-offs. It improves clarity for users and enables better machine interpretation.

A common failure pattern appears when visuals drive markup decisions: headings are faked with bold paragraphs, buttons are built from clickable divs, and lists are made with line breaks. The page may look fine, yet becomes confusing when read aloud or navigated non-visually. Correct elements prevent that class of error.

Keep headings ordered for navigation.

Headings are not decoration. They create the document outline that many assistive technology users depend on for quick navigation, similar to how sighted users skim a page. A logical hierarchy allows someone using a screen reader to jump between sections, skip irrelevant parts, and build a mental model of the content without reading every sentence.

When heading levels are inconsistent, the experience breaks down. For example, jumping from an <h2> straight to an <h4> suggests that a level is missing, and users may assume content was omitted or that the page structure is unreliable. That is especially problematic for long-form guides, help centres, and documentation, where users often arrive with a single question and need to find the relevant part quickly.

Heading order also helps teams. A stable structure makes content easier to update because writers can add new subsections without redesigning layout patterns. It supports analytics and optimisation too: clear sections make it easier to measure which parts of a page users engage with and where they drop off, especially when combined with scroll depth or event tracking.

Strategies for effective headings.

Use a single <h1> that clearly describes the page’s primary purpose. On many CMS templates, this is automatically bound to the page title, so teams should avoid creating a second “visual” H1 elsewhere.
Use <h2> for major sections, then <h3> for subsections. If a subsection needs further breakdown, use <h4>, and continue in order as required.
Avoid skipping levels. If design requires a smaller or larger visual style, CSS should change the appearance, not the semantic level.
Write headings that communicate the “answer” a section provides. Clear headings reduce reliance on scanning paragraphs and help users find information faster.

Edge cases matter. Some pages use repeated modules such as FAQs, pricing blocks, or product grids. In those layouts, headings should still reflect real structure rather than visual rhythm. A grid of cards may look symmetrical, but the markup should show whether those cards are peers under a single section, or whether each card introduces a new top-level topic.

Make controls real buttons or links.

Interactive items should be built with elements that browsers and assistive tools already understand. That means actions should be implemented as <button> and navigation should be implemented as <a>. When teams build clickable elements using non-interactive tags, they often forget keyboard behaviour, focus indication, and correct announcements for screen readers. The result is an interface that works for mouse users but fails for many others.

The distinction between a link and a button is not academic. A link moves a user to a new resource: another page, a section anchor, a file, or an external site. A button triggers an action: submitting a form, opening a modal, expanding an accordion, adding an item to a basket, or changing a filter. Users expect different behaviours from each, including how they can open items in new tabs, how browser history behaves, and what assistive technology announces.

When custom components are unavoidable, ARIA can help, but it should be used carefully. ARIA adds semantic information, yet it does not automatically add correct keyboard interaction. If a team assigns role="button" to a non-button element, it still needs to implement keyboard support (Enter and Space), focusability, and state announcements. Native elements already provide these behaviours, so they remain the safest default.

Best practices for interactive controls.

Use buttons for actions such as “Add to basket”, “Send message”, “Load more”, or “Apply filter”. Labels should describe the outcome rather than the generic action, particularly when many buttons appear in a list.
Use links for navigation such as “View pricing”, “Read the documentation”, or “Download the brochure”. Link text should stand on its own without surrounding context.
Apply ARIA only when native HTML cannot express the pattern. When used, ensure states are communicated (for example aria-expanded on accordion triggers) and that keyboard behaviour matches expected standards.
Validate behaviour using at least one screen reader and at least one keyboard-only pass. A control that is technically focusable can still be confusing if it is announced incorrectly or has an unclear name.

For Squarespace-heavy teams, this often shows up in custom “button-like” blocks or scripted banners. The safest approach is to start with real button or link elements in code blocks and style them, rather than styling non-interactive containers and hoping interaction can be bolted on later.

Provide text alternatives for media.

Text alternatives ensure that non-text content does not become a dead end. If an image contains product specs, a chart communicates a trend, or a video explains onboarding steps, there must be a text-based way to access the same information. This is essential for users with visual or hearing impairments, and it also helps users in constrained environments, such as limited bandwidth or muted audio.

For images, alt text should communicate function and meaning. If an image is purely decorative, the best alt text is often an empty attribute so screen readers skip it, avoiding noise. If an image acts as a link or button, the alt text should describe the action or destination, not the pixels. For complex visuals such as infographics, alt text alone is rarely enough; a short summary plus a nearby detailed explanation often works better.

For video and audio, captions and transcripts improve usability beyond disability contexts. Captions support people watching in quiet or noisy spaces, and transcripts enable fast scanning and search. When content teams repurpose material into blog posts, transcripts also become an efficient source for structured written guidance.

Implementing text alternatives.

Write alt text that conveys the essential point. If the image repeats nearby text, alt text can be shorter or even empty if it adds no meaning.
Add captions to video that include spoken words and meaningful sound cues, such as “doorbell rings” if it affects understanding.
Provide transcripts for audio and long videos, especially when the material is instructional, legal, or technical. Include non-verbal context when it changes meaning.
Ensure key information in images is also present in surrounding copy, especially for UI screenshots, pricing tables, diagrams, and step-by-step checklists.

A practical edge case: screenshots of dashboards or code. If a guide relies on a screenshot to show which menu item to click, the surrounding text should describe the label and location so the guidance remains usable. For product and growth teams, this also improves onboarding completion because users can follow steps even if images fail to load.

Make everything keyboard reachable.

Keyboard operation is a foundational requirement because it supports many groups: people with motor impairments, screen reader users, power users, and anyone navigating with alternative input devices. If a site is genuinely keyboard-friendly, it tends to be more logically structured and less error-prone overall.

The goal is not only that elements can be focused, but that focus follows a sensible order and the user can always see where they are. Focus order should generally follow the visual reading order, especially for forms and multi-step flows. If focus jumps unpredictably between regions, users lose confidence and may abandon tasks such as checkout, booking, or application submission.

Keyboard traps are a common issue in modals, dropdowns, and embedded widgets. If a user tabs into a menu and cannot tab out, the interface becomes unusable. Accessible modals typically require focus to move into the modal when it opens, remain constrained while open, and return to the trigger when closed. Many component libraries implement this, but custom scripts often miss it.

Keyboard navigation best practices.

Verify all interactive elements are reachable using Tab and operable using Enter or Space where appropriate. Include hover-only menus, carousels, and expandable sections in testing.
Ensure focus styles are visible and high-contrast. Removing outlines for aesthetics commonly causes accessibility failures and frustrates keyboard users.
Prevent traps in modals and dropdowns by managing focus correctly and ensuring Escape closes overlays when that pattern is expected.
Add skip links for pages with repeated navigation, especially content-heavy sites and documentation hubs, allowing users to jump directly to main content.

Teams working in Squarespace often inherit decent keyboard behaviour from built-in blocks, but problems appear when third-party scripts or custom sections introduce non-standard interactions. A lightweight test routine catches most issues: tab through the page, open menus, fill a form, submit it, and confirm the focus returns to a sensible location after actions complete.

Accessibility works best as an ongoing practice rather than a one-off audit. When design systems, templates, and content guidelines embed these principles, future pages stay compliant by default. The next step is translating these foundations into repeatable workflows: checklists for content teams, component standards for developers, and realistic testing that fits into release cycles without slowing delivery.

Play section audio

Understanding WCAG and its significance.

WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) describes how to make websites and digital content usable for people with disabilities. It is not a “nice to have” checklist, but a practical framework that helps teams build experiences that work for a wider range of human realities: low vision, blindness, deafness, limited mobility, temporary injury, cognitive overload, ageing, and many other scenarios that affect how someone navigates the web.

The significance is straightforward: digital services are now part of daily life, from booking appointments to paying invoices to learning a new skill. When a site blocks access through poor structure, unclear interactions, or missing alternatives, it effectively denies participation. WCAG exists to reduce that exclusion by translating accessibility into testable requirements that designers, developers, and content teams can implement.

WCAG also tends to improve outcomes beyond accessibility. Sites that are easier to navigate with a keyboard are often easier to navigate on mobile. Clearer labels and better error handling reduce abandoned forms. Strong information structure helps both assistive technologies and search engines interpret content. The net effect is often better engagement, fewer support requests, and more resilient content operations.

Under the hood, WCAG is organised around four principles often summarised as “POUR”: content should be Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. Perceivable means users can detect the content (for example, text alternatives for images). Operable means users can interact (for example, keyboard access). Understandable means users can comprehend it (for example, consistent patterns and clear errors). Robust means it works across browsers and assistive technologies (for example, semantic markup rather than brittle workarounds). Keeping POUR in mind helps teams reason about edge cases when a rule is not obvious.

For SMBs and product teams, the most useful way to treat WCAG is as an engineering and content quality standard. It can be integrated into design systems, CMS workflows, and QA routines, which turns accessibility into repeatable practice rather than an expensive clean-up exercise. The sections that follow break down where teams typically fail, how they can test quickly, and which remediation habits reduce long-term risk and rework.

Identify common failures in accessibility compliance.

Most accessibility issues are not exotic. They usually come from everyday production pressure: shipping pages quickly, copying patterns between templates, relying on visual cues, and treating semantics as optional. The result is content that looks correct but fails when used with a screen reader, keyboard, or high zoom. Identifying common failure modes helps teams focus on fixes that remove entire categories of defects.

A frequent problem is missing or incorrect labelling for interactive controls. When a form input has no programmatic label, a screen reader may announce it as “edit text” with no context. Icon-only buttons create the same issue: visually they appear obvious, but assistive technologies need an accessible name (via a label, aria-label, or meaningful text). This is not a cosmetic detail. Without a label, the control is functionally ambiguous.

Contrast and focus visibility are another cluster of failures, often caused by brand styling decisions that prioritise subtlety over clarity. Poor contrast makes text unreadable for users with low vision, on low-quality screens, or in bright light. Hidden focus indicators cause keyboard users to “lose” their position on the page, which can make a site feel broken. These issues also affect power users who navigate quickly without a mouse, and anyone using a trackpad with limited precision.

Structural issues appear when pages are built without a logical heading hierarchy, or when layout is constructed with generic containers rather than semantic elements. The “div soup” pattern makes screen reader navigation slow because headings are one of the primary ways users jump through content. If an H1 is missing, repeated, or followed by headings that skip levels (such as H2 to H4), assistive technologies and other tools struggle to form a consistent outline of the page.

Keyboard access failures are often introduced through custom components: dropdowns, accordions, sliders, modals, and menu systems. If these elements do not support tab navigation, arrow keys, and clear focus management, they may be unusable to people with motor impairments, power users, or anyone using switch devices. A common pattern is a clickable element built from a non-interactive tag with JavaScript, which creates a control that looks interactive but is not recognised as one.

Error handling tends to fail when messaging relies on colour alone (for example, “fields in red are required”) or when feedback is vague (“something went wrong”). Error content should explain what happened, where it happened, and how to fix it. It also needs to be announced to assistive technologies, especially when validation is triggered after form submission. Teams building in Squarespace or custom front-ends frequently overlook the ARIA patterns that ensure error messages are associated with the fields they describe.

Media alternatives are another large category. Images without alt text remove context for screen reader users and can also degrade SEO when imagery carries meaning. The practical goal is not to describe every decorative photo, but to ensure meaningful images have meaningful alternative text, and decorative images are marked so they are ignored. Videos without captions or transcripts exclude Deaf and hard-of-hearing users and also block consumption in silent environments, such as commuting or open-plan offices.

Common accessibility failures include.

Missing labels on inputs and icon-only buttons.
Poor contrast and hidden focus indicators.
Incorrect heading hierarchy and “div soup”.
Interactive elements that are not keyboard accessible.
Error messages that are vague or only colour-based.
Absence of alternative text for images.
Videos without captions or transcripts.

Conduct a quick testing checklist for immediate assessment.

A fast assessment will not guarantee full compliance, but it will surface the most disruptive issues quickly. This kind of checklist is valuable for founders and ops leads because it creates immediate visibility into risk and effort, without needing a deep audit first. It also helps teams prioritise fixes that reduce user frustration and support load.

A keyboard-only pass is the quickest “reality check”. If the site cannot be navigated with Tab, Shift+Tab, Enter, and the arrow keys where appropriate, many users will be blocked. During this pass, testers should watch for focus traps (getting stuck inside an element), missing focus styling, and controls that cannot be reached. Dropdown menus and modals are common offenders. If a modal opens, focus should move into it, and focus should return to a sensible place when it closes.

A headings outline check is the fastest way to validate structural logic. The objective is a coherent, nested structure where headings reflect content hierarchy, not styling preference. Pages often fail here when designers use headings for visual size rather than meaning. On content-heavy sites, especially knowledge bases and service pages, improving heading structure tends to produce immediate benefits for scanning, navigation, and SEO snippet clarity.

Contrast spot checks should focus on primary templates and “money pages” first: home, core landing pages, pricing, checkout, and key forms. Teams do not need to measure every colour combination in an early pass, but they should verify that body text, links, buttons, and subtle UI states (disabled, hover, focus) remain readable. Where brand palettes are low-contrast by design, adjusting colour tokens at the design-system level usually beats one-off overrides.

Form testing should be performed by intentionally causing errors. This reveals whether the system explains what went wrong in plain language, whether the message is placed where users will notice it, and whether the error is linked to the field. It also surfaces issues like placeholders being used as labels, which breaks context once a user starts typing. For high-impact workflows (lead capture, onboarding, payments), form clarity directly affects conversion and customer satisfaction.

Mobile testing matters because touch introduces different accessibility risks. Tap targets that are too small, carousels that steal scroll, and fixed elements that cover content are common. Readability also changes on smaller screens, where low contrast and tight line spacing become more punishing. Mobile testing should include zooming text and rotating orientation, since many users rely on those adjustments to read comfortably.

Automated tools can help, but they rarely catch everything. Involving people with disabilities or users of assistive tech provides insights that tools miss, such as confusing interaction patterns, unclear language, or task flows that become exhausting. Even a small round of targeted feedback, such as testing one booking flow or one purchase flow, can reveal blockers that would otherwise remain invisible until complaints arrive.

Quick testing checklist.

Keyboard-only navigation pass.
Headings outline check (structure and order).
Contrast spot checks on key pages.
Form submission test with errors intentionally triggered.
Mobile test for tap targets and readability.
User testing with individuals who have disabilities.

Establish remediation habits for ongoing accessibility improvement.

Accessibility rarely fails because a team does not care. It fails because the work is treated as a one-time project rather than an ongoing quality system. Strong remediation habits reduce the cost of fixes over time by preventing regressions and by shifting accessibility earlier in the workflow, where changes are cheaper and more reliable.

The highest-leverage habit is fixing root causes at the component level. When a team patches an individual page without correcting the underlying template, the same defect will reappear on the next page created. For example, if a button component lacks a label pattern, every new icon-only button inherits the flaw. A component-first approach means building an accessible “source of truth” for menus, accordions, forms, and call-to-action blocks, then reusing it across the site.

Accessible defaults in patterns and templates are especially important for teams working in Squarespace or similar CMS platforms, where non-developers publish content frequently. If templates enforce proper headings, readable contrast, and consistent button labelling, content authors are less likely to accidentally publish inaccessible pages. This reduces the dependency on specialist review, which is often a bottleneck for SMBs.

Re-testing after changes should be treated as non-negotiable, because accessibility regressions are easy to introduce. A small CSS tweak can hide focus styles site-wide. A new animation can trigger motion sensitivity. A script update can break keyboard behaviour. Lightweight regression checks, such as a keyboard pass on key templates and a quick scan with automated testing, can catch these before they become customer-facing problems.

Documentation is not bureaucracy when it is aimed at speed. Capturing known limitations and agreed workarounds helps teams avoid repeated debate and ad-hoc fixes. For example, if a third-party booking widget cannot be made fully accessible, documenting the limitation clarifies what mitigations exist (such as providing an accessible alternative contact method, or simplifying the page around it) and who owns follow-up with the vendor.

Keeping accessibility as routine QA means it becomes part of release discipline. Instead of “checking accessibility at the end”, teams can define a small gate: keyboard operability, labels, heading structure, error messaging, and contrast on new components. This is similar to performance budgets or basic security checks. When these gates become habit, accessibility stops competing with delivery speed and starts reinforcing it through fewer reworks and fewer support issues.

Cultural reinforcement matters as well. Training designers to use headings semantically, training content teams to write meaningful alt text, and training developers to implement accessible interaction patterns builds shared competence. Over time, accessibility becomes a normal constraint, like page speed or brand consistency, rather than a specialist request that appears late in a project.

Remediation habits include.

Fix root causes systematically (components, not one-offs).
Build accessible defaults into patterns and templates.
Re-test after changes to prevent regressions.
Document known limitations and workarounds.
Keep accessibility as routine QA, not a final step.
Foster a culture of accessibility within the organisation.

Understand the importance of WCAG standards in web development.

WCAG matters because it translates inclusive design into a shared standard that teams can build against. Without a common framework, accessibility becomes subjective, driven by opinions rather than measurable requirements. WCAG provides criteria that can be tested, tracked, and improved incrementally, which is particularly useful for growing teams that are balancing speed, cost, and quality.

On the user experience side, WCAG-aligned design tends to create calmer, clearer interfaces. Clear labels, predictable navigation, readable typography, and meaningful structure help everyone. They support users with disabilities, users under stress, users on poor connections, and users operating with limited attention. Many “accessibility fixes” are simply good interaction design that reduces friction and increases task completion.

On the technical side, WCAG pushes teams towards semantic HTML, which improves robustness across devices and assistive technologies. Semantic markup is also easier to maintain because it relies less on fragile JavaScript workarounds. A properly structured page allows screen readers to present useful navigation landmarks, and it also helps search engines understand what the page is about. That overlap is where accessibility and SEO reinforce each other.

SEO benefits often emerge indirectly. Meaningful headings clarify topic structure. Descriptive link text improves crawl relevance. Alt text can provide additional context for image search and indexing. Clean markup reduces rendering issues. While accessibility is not an SEO trick, accessibility practices frequently align with what search engines reward: clarity, structure, and usability.

There is also a brand and commercial angle. As customers become more aware of inclusive design, accessibility signals competence and care. Organisations that remove barriers reduce churn from frustrated users and widen their addressable market. For service businesses and SaaS, accessible onboarding and support content can reduce tickets and improve activation, which is a direct operational win.

Finally, WCAG is a social responsibility mechanism. It formalises the idea that access to digital services should not depend on someone’s physical or cognitive capabilities. When organisations adopt WCAG as a baseline, they contribute to a more equitable digital environment where participation is not restricted to the “average” user profile.

Benefits of adhering to WCAG standards.

Increased access to digital services for all users.
Improved usability and user satisfaction.
Enhanced SEO and visibility.
Broader audience reach and engagement.
Legal compliance and reduced risk of litigation.
Enhanced brand reputation and customer loyalty.
Commitment to social responsibility and equity.

Recognise the legal implications of non-compliance.

Non-compliance is not only a usability issue; it can also become a legal and financial risk. Many regions treat digital accessibility as part of equal access obligations, which means websites, apps, and digital services may be expected to meet recognised accessibility standards. Where complaints escalate, organisations can face enforcement actions, lawsuits, contractual failure with public-sector buyers, or urgent remediation timelines that cost far more than planned improvements.

The European Accessibility Act is a prominent example, requiring that certain digital products and services be accessible by 28 June 2025. The practical implication is that accessibility cannot be postponed indefinitely, especially for businesses selling into EU markets. The rule can apply based on where the product is sold, not just where the company is based, which matters for SaaS, ecommerce, and agencies working with international clients.

In the United States, courts have interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act to apply to websites in many cases, which has driven a steady pattern of accessibility-related litigation. Even when cases settle, the combined cost of legal fees, remediation, and internal disruption can be significant. The reputational impact can be worse: public complaints about inaccessibility often spread quickly and can damage trust with customers who expect modern digital services to work for everyone.

There are also indirect costs. When a site is hard to use, support teams receive more emails, sales teams handle more objections, and operations teams patch issues reactively. If remediation is forced under pressure, it may require redesigning templates, rewriting content, replacing widgets, or re-architecting front-end components. That kind of emergency work tends to compete with growth initiatives and creates opportunity cost that rarely shows up in a single budget line.

Teams that treat accessibility as a continuous practice usually reduce this risk profile. They also gain faster iteration because content and components become more standardised. When accessibility is built in, launches become calmer: fewer “hotfix” cycles, fewer user complaints, and fewer last-minute design compromises.

Legal implications of non-compliance include.

Potential lawsuits and financial penalties.
Damage to brand reputation and customer trust.
Loss of market opportunities and audience reach.
Increased scrutiny from regulatory bodies.
Negative impact on overall user experience.
Financial costs associated with legal fees and infrastructure overhauls.

Play section audio

Understanding accessibility in website builders.

Acknowledge Squarespace-specific limitations in accessibility.

Working inside Squarespace often means building within a framework that prioritises speed-to-publish and visual consistency. That convenience can create genuine accessibility constraints, particularly when teams need fine-grained control over underlying HTML semantics. Some blocks and templates output acceptable markup, but others may generate structures that are difficult to adjust without custom code. When semantic structure is off, assistive technologies such as screen readers can struggle to interpret relationships between headings, regions, navigation, buttons, and content, which raises friction for users who depend on predictable patterns to browse.

A common issue is limited control over landmark roles and the semantic elements chosen for a component. For example, a design might visually resemble a proper navigation menu, but the DOM may not express it as a clear navigation region with meaningful labels. Another example appears when a “button-like” element is rendered as a styled link or generic container, which can reduce keyboard clarity and confuse screen reader output. These problems are rarely malicious; they are side effects of a builder abstracting implementation details away from the editor.

Customisations can improve the situation, but they can also create new problems if introduced without discipline. Adding JavaScript to “fix” behaviour can break focus order, trap keyboard users in overlays, or disrupt screen reader announcements when content updates dynamically. The main risk is regression: a site might pass basic checks one week, then fail after a layout change, a new block is added, or code is adjusted for a marketing campaign. Accessibility work inside builders succeeds when teams treat every enhancement as a small software change with testing, documentation, and rollback paths.

Design choices matter just as much as markup. Many Squarespace templates look polished but can miss core visual accessibility requirements, especially colour contrast, text scaling, target sizes, and visible focus states. A brand palette that looks elegant on a designer’s monitor might be illegible for users with low vision, colour vision deficiency, or when viewed in bright sunlight on mobile. Treating accessibility as a design input, not a post-build audit, reduces these issues and lowers ongoing maintenance.

Key considerations:

Identify components where semantic output cannot be reliably controlled.
Test custom code thoroughly to avoid introducing regressions in keyboard or screen reader behaviour.
Document platform constraints and the trade-offs chosen during implementation.
Evaluate visual design for contrast, sizing, focus visibility, and motion sensitivity.

Implement accessible patterns within website builders.

Accessibility improves quickly when teams adopt repeatable patterns that work well within website builders. The first pattern is structural clarity: headings, sections, and consistent layouts should map to a logical reading order. A clean heading hierarchy gives assistive technology users a fast way to skim, just like sighted users scan pages visually. When the structure is stable, it also improves content comprehension for everyone, including users who are tired, distracted, or reading on small screens.

Heading logic is often where builder-based sites drift. A page can look perfect while using headings out of sequence, such as jumping from H2 to H4 because the typography “looks right”. Instead, headings should reflect meaning, not styling. If a page has a single top-level topic, that topic should be the primary heading, and subtopics should follow in order. When Squarespace blocks force odd formatting, teams can sometimes resolve it by changing block types, adjusting content structure, or carefully introducing code that preserves semantics while keeping the same visual style.

Interactive elements deserve special attention. Buttons and links should communicate purpose without relying on surrounding context. “Click here” and “Learn more” become ambiguous when read by a screen reader listing links. Clear labels reduce support queries and reduce drop-offs. Consistency also matters: if one call-to-action is styled as a button but behaves like a link, users may not predict what happens. On mobile, reflow and stacked layouts can reorder content visually, which can create a mismatch between what a user sees and what keyboard focus follows. That is why teams should verify focus order and reading order after every major layout adjustment.

Images and icons must be treated as content, not decoration, until proven otherwise. The alt text should describe the purpose of the image in context, not just what it depicts. A product photo might need a short description, while a diagram may require a longer text alternative nearby. Decorative images should typically have empty alt text so screen readers skip them, preventing noise and fatigue. This approach supports accessibility and tends to improve SEO because search engines better understand page meaning, especially when images support key services, products, or documentation.

Best practices for accessible patterns:

Use headings and text blocks to create a clear, navigable structure that matches content meaning.
Ensure buttons and links are identifiable, descriptive, and consistent in behaviour.
Check mobile layouts to confirm content order, focus order, and reading flow remain logical.
Provide descriptive alt text for meaningful images, and empty alt text for purely decorative visuals.

Discuss tooling options available for accessibility support.

Accessibility work scales better when teams use the right tools at the right stage. Automated testing can spot frequent issues quickly, while device testing reveals layout and interaction problems that only appear in real conditions. Tools such as BrowserStack are useful for validating behaviour across devices, browsers, and operating systems without maintaining a physical device lab. This matters for builder sites because a layout that behaves well on one browser can fail subtly on another, especially around menus, modals, and embedded content.

Automated scanning tools are effective for catching repeatable failures: missing form labels, low contrast pairs, missing alt attributes, and incorrect ARIA usage. Axe is widely used because it integrates into developer tools and CI workflows, making it easier to treat accessibility as part of everyday quality checks rather than a one-off audit. For teams that publish frequently, integrating automated checks into a release checklist can prevent the slow drift that occurs when content changes weekly.

Visual feedback tools help non-developers participate. When a content editor can immediately see which elements have contrast warnings or missing labels, accessibility becomes shared responsibility rather than a specialist task. This is particularly relevant for SMB teams where one person may handle marketing, content, and site updates. When accessibility tooling is simple and visible, it becomes easier to keep standards steady while moving quickly.

Tooling should also include knowledge resources, not just scanners. Staying current with WCAG helps teams interpret issues correctly and prioritise fixes that materially affect users. Many failures are not about chasing perfect scores; they are about removing barriers in core journeys such as contacting the business, purchasing, signing up, or finding essential information. A practical workflow often pairs guidelines with a small internal “definition of done” that fits the organisation’s capacity.

Recommended tools for accessibility:

BrowserStack for real-device and cross-browser testing.
Axe for automated checks within browser dev tools and workflows.
WAVE for visual overlays that help spot structural and contrast issues.
Color Contrast Analyzer for verifying contrast ratios against accessibility targets.

Evaluate the effectiveness of automated tools versus manual checks.

Automated tooling is excellent at identifying what can be measured consistently, at speed. It can flag missing alt attributes, detect contrast failures, and highlight obvious semantic mistakes such as empty links. That speed makes it a strong first line of defence, especially for teams shipping frequent updates or maintaining multiple landing pages. Automated scans also help create baselines, enabling teams to track whether changes improve or degrade accessibility over time.

Yet automated tools cannot fully judge whether something “makes sense” to a human using assistive technology. Context is the key limitation. A scan might report that a button is technically focusable and has a label, but it cannot confirm that the label is meaningful, that the sequence of interactions is understandable, or that error messages actually help a user recover. For example, a checkout form might pass basic checks while still being frustrating because field instructions are vague, validation appears only by colour, or focus jumps unpredictably after an error.

Manual evaluation fills those gaps. Keyboard-only navigation testing often surfaces issues builder sites accidentally introduce, such as hidden focus indicators, sticky headers covering focused elements, or modal windows that cannot be dismissed without a pointer device. Screen reader testing, even at a basic level, helps teams understand whether headings, links, and controls convey a coherent story. The most valuable input, when feasible, comes from involving people who regularly use assistive technologies, because they bring real usage patterns that internal teams rarely replicate.

A durable approach combines both: automation for breadth and repeatability, manual checks for depth and real-world usability. Teams also benefit from scheduling accessibility reviews as part of ongoing maintenance. Builder sites evolve quickly, and content teams can inadvertently introduce issues by embedding third-party widgets, uploading images without text alternatives, or using stylised headings for visual effect. Regular audits catch these shifts early, preventing a build-up of accessibility debt.

Balancing automated and manual testing:

Run automated scans regularly to catch common, measurable issues early.
Perform manual checks for keyboard flow, focus visibility, and screen reader clarity.
Where possible, involve users with disabilities for feedback grounded in real interaction patterns.
Schedule periodic audits to prevent accessibility drift as pages and content evolve.

Document known limitations and workarounds for future reference.

Accessibility is not a one-time project; it is operational practice. Documentation is the mechanism that keeps improvements from being lost when content changes, pages get redesigned, or team members rotate. A useful accessibility document captures what the platform can and cannot do, what was changed, and why those decisions were made. It also records any custom code introduced, along with the specific problem it solved and the tests used to validate it.

Good documentation reduces risk in two directions. First, it prevents teams from accidentally undoing fixes when editing templates or swapping sections. Second, it limits the chance that a workaround becomes a hidden dependency nobody understands. For example, if a navigation fix relies on a particular class name or block structure, that dependency should be explicit so future updates do not silently break keyboard navigation. For SMBs, this is especially important because website maintenance is often intermittent, handled between other responsibilities, and changes might be made months apart.

Documentation also supports training. New contributors can learn house rules such as “headings are semantic, typography is separate” or “every image needs a decision: meaningful or decorative”. That clarity speeds up onboarding and keeps the site consistent even when multiple people publish content. Where relevant, teams can also create short internal checklists for common tasks like adding a new landing page, embedding video, or updating product images.

External resources can help users as well, particularly on complex sites or portals. A short accessibility page can describe supported navigation patterns, keyboard shortcuts, and how to contact the organisation if a barrier is found. This is not an admission of failure; it is a trust-building signal that the business takes inclusive access seriously and is willing to improve. When a site’s audience includes international users, multi-language considerations can also be documented, such as how translations are handled and whether key help content is available across languages.

Documentation best practices:

Maintain a central record of accessibility issues, decisions, and implemented solutions.
Update documentation whenever templates, blocks, or custom code change.
Share findings internally so accessibility becomes part of routine publishing and QA.
Create an external accessibility note or guide when it improves user confidence and supportability.

Accessibility inside a website builder becomes much more achievable when teams treat it as a system: platform constraints, design choices, content habits, testing discipline, and documentation all work together. The next step is turning these principles into a repeatable workflow, one that fits the team’s publishing cadence, clarifies who checks what, and ensures accessibility remains stable as the site grows.

Play section audio

Understanding semantic structure for accessibility.

Semantic structure sits at the core of accessible web experiences because it describes what content is, not just how it looks. When a page is built with meaningful HTML, assistive technologies can interpret the layout, purpose, and relationships between elements. That makes the site easier to navigate for people using screen readers, voice control, keyboard-only input, switch devices, or alternative browsing tools. It also tends to improve findability because search engines benefit from clearer content signals.

For founders and SMB teams, semantic structure is not only a “developer quality” topic. It is a risk reducer and a performance lever. Better accessibility often correlates with stronger conversion rates because users can complete tasks with less friction. It also supports content operations: structured pages are easier to update, easier to maintain, and less likely to break when new sections get added. In platforms like Squarespace, where many teams work inside pre-defined blocks, semantic thinking helps teams choose the right building blocks and avoid accidental accessibility regressions.

Meaning first, styling second.

Use semantic HTML to enhance meaning.

When developers use the right tags for the right purpose, assistive technologies can create an accurate “map” of the page. Semantic HTML communicates roles like “this is a navigation area”, “this is the main article”, or “this is supporting content”. Screen readers then expose that structure as landmarks and lists, letting users jump directly to the section they need instead of listening to a page from top to bottom.

The practical benefit shows up quickly on content-heavy sites. A blog post marked as an article can be discovered as a discrete unit. Supporting information placed in an aside can be skipped by users who only want the core steps. A figure with a caption becomes a single meaningful object rather than “image, then random text”. The result is a page that behaves predictably for a wider range of browsing styles, including people who skim, people who listen, and people who navigate by keyboard shortcuts.

Semantic choices also help search engines interpret the page beyond keywords. A crawler can more confidently determine what is primary content, what is supplementary, and what is navigation. That typically improves indexing quality, which can support SEO outcomes such as richer snippets, more accurate categorisation, and better alignment between query intent and the page being served. The same structure that improves accessibility often improves content clarity for everyone.

Key semantic elements to implement.

<article> for self-contained content that can stand alone, such as a blog post, a help article, a release note, or a case study.
<section> for a thematic grouping within a page, often introduced by a heading, such as “Pricing”, “Frequently asked questions”, or “Implementation steps”.
<aside> for related but non-essential content such as side notes, pull quotes, call-outs, definitions, or “tip” boxes.
<figure> paired with a caption to bind media and explanation together, useful for screenshots, diagrams, charts, and example outputs.
<time> to encode dates and times in a machine-readable way, helping event listings, release histories, and “last updated” indicators.

A useful rule is that semantics should survive if styling disappears. If the page is stripped down to plain text, the content hierarchy should still make sense. That is often how assistive technologies experience it.

Maintain a logical heading structure.

Headings are more than styling. They create a navigable outline that screen readers can expose as a list, allowing users to jump to the exact section they want. A strong heading structure is especially important for long-form content, documentation, landing pages with multiple modules, and e-commerce pages that combine descriptions, FAQs, shipping information, and policies.

A logical hierarchy generally starts with a single page title, then breaks content into sections and subsections. In practical terms, that means one top-level heading for the main topic, then nested headings that reflect actual structure rather than visual preference. The goal is that each heading level represents a real “depth” in the content tree. When headings are used purely to resize text, the outline becomes unreliable and users lose the ability to skim effectively.

Another common failure mode is skipping levels, such as jumping from a top-level heading straight to a much smaller subheading without an intermediate step. Some screen reader users navigate by heading level, so level skipping can feel like missing chapters in a book. This issue is also easy to introduce during rapid content updates, especially when different team members edit different parts of a page. A consistent hierarchy acts like a shared content contract: everyone knows where new information should live.

Best practices for heading structure.

Use <h1> as the single primary page title, matching the real topic of the page.
Follow a sequential order and avoid skipping levels, so the document outline remains intact.
Keep headings descriptive, specific, and aligned with the content that follows, so they work as a reliable table of contents.

In block-based builders, headings can be accidentally misused because they are convenient visual styles. Teams benefit from agreeing on a simple internal rule set, for example: “Page title equals H1; top modules equal H2; subpoints equal H3.” That rule set reduces regressions during fast publishing cycles.

Use lists for structured presentation.

Lists help users digest steps, requirements, features, and comparisons. Correct list markup matters because assistive technologies announce list boundaries, item counts, and position, such as “list of five items” or “item two of five”. That context improves comprehension, especially when the list contains procedural steps or validation requirements.

Ordered lists work well for sequences where the order changes meaning, such as onboarding steps, troubleshooting flows, or configuration instructions. Unordered lists suit collections where order does not matter, such as feature sets, benefits, or related resources. Using the wrong list type can create subtle confusion for users who rely on audio feedback, because the browser will communicate an implied meaning that the content does not support.

Lists also reduce cognitive load for people with attention or memory constraints. A dense paragraph explaining five requirements forces users to hold the entire set in their head. A list makes each requirement a discrete unit that can be reviewed and re-checked. This matters in real business scenarios such as checkout policies, subscription terms, appointment preparation instructions, or B2B onboarding documentation.

Guidelines for using lists.

Group related items into lists instead of long paragraphs when users need to scan or verify information.
Keep list items parallel in form, for example each item starts with a verb when describing steps, which improves readability.
Use nested lists carefully and only when the hierarchy is real, because deeply nested structures can become hard to follow in audio navigation.

Handle tabular data with care.

Tables are valuable when content is truly tabular, meaning the user benefits from comparing values across rows and columns. The key is to make relationships explicit so assistive technologies can announce them correctly. When a user navigates across a table, a screen reader should be able to communicate both the header and the cell value, for example “Plan name: Pro, Monthly cost: 29.88 euros”. Without proper headers, the table can become a stream of unrelated numbers and labels.

Teams sometimes use tables for layout because they offer predictable alignment. That approach harms accessibility because assistive technologies interpret the content as data relationships that do not exist. It also harms maintainability, because layout tables are brittle when content changes. Layout should be handled with modern CSS and the platform’s layout tools, while tables should be reserved for comparisons such as pricing tiers, feature matrices, or product specifications.

When tables are used, header cells should be marked properly and, where possible, directional relationships should be clear. For complex tables with multiple header rows, explicit associations may be required so users can understand what each value refers to. This is a common edge case in analytics dashboards, comparison pages, and spec sheets.

Guidelines for tables.

Use tables for data comparison only, not for page layout.
Include header cells and ensure they describe the category of the data beneath or beside them.
Add a clear caption describing what the table represents, so users understand the purpose before navigating the grid.

Define interactive elements clearly.

Interactive controls must communicate what they are and what they do. Using native elements such as buttons and links is a major accessibility win because browsers and assistive technologies already understand them. A <button> is keyboard focusable by default, supports activation via keyboard, and exposes an accessible role. Recreating button behaviour with generic containers often causes missing focus states, broken keyboard support, and inconsistent behaviour across devices.

Clear labels matter as much as correct elements. Link and button text should describe the destination or action. Vague labels such as “click here” create an immediate problem for screen reader users because many screen readers allow users to browse a list of links out of context. If the link list contains ten instances of “click here”, the page becomes unusable. Descriptive labels also improve usability for everyone because they set expectations and reduce mis-clicks.

Interactive elements should also be predictable in behaviour. If a control opens a new tab, triggers a download, expands an accordion, or submits a form, its label and surrounding context should make that clear. That reduces surprise and helps users plan their next step. This is especially relevant in commercial flows where unexpected behaviour can cause users to abandon checkout.

Tips for defining interactive elements.

Use native interactive elements instead of generic containers, so keyboard and assistive behaviour works automatically.
Write action-based labels that describe outcomes, such as “Download the invoice PDF” rather than “Download”.
Apply ARIA only when necessary, typically for custom components, and ensure it matches real behaviour rather than intended behaviour.

ARIA can improve accessibility, but it can also create harm when misapplied. A strong default approach is to rely on native elements first, then layer ARIA only for gaps that cannot be solved structurally.

Provide alternative text and media equivalents.

Images, video, and audio need text equivalents so users who cannot see or hear them still receive the intended information. Alt text should describe the meaning or function of an image, not merely restate surrounding text. If the image is a call-to-action, the alt should communicate the action. If the image is decorative, an empty alt attribute ensures assistive technologies skip it, reducing noise.

Alt text quality is not about length; it is about intent. A product photo might need a short description that distinguishes it from similar products. A chart may need a summary of the insight rather than a pixel-level description. A screenshot of settings in a tutorial often benefits from alt text that states what the screenshot proves, such as “Settings panel showing the privacy toggle enabled”. That helps users follow along even if the image cannot be interpreted.

For video, captions support Deaf and hard-of-hearing users, and they also support people watching in noisy environments or in silence. Transcripts assist users who prefer to skim and can be indexed for search. Audio content benefits from transcripts for the same reasons. Media equivalents are both an accessibility requirement and a content scalability advantage because they turn single-format media into reusable text assets.

Best practices for alternatives.

Write concise alt text focused on the image’s purpose in context.
Use empty alt attributes for purely decorative images so assistive technologies ignore them.
Provide captions for video and transcripts for audio, especially for educational or instructional content.

Semantic structure is not a one-off checklist item. As content expands, teams benefit from routine checks that validate headings, link labels, and media alternatives. That can be done with periodic audits, automated testing, and feedback from users with disabilities. Standards such as WCAG provide a practical framework to align teams across design, content, and development, and they help organisations demonstrate responsible digital practice.

As this topic moves from page structure to ongoing operations, the next step is understanding how to test accessibility reliably, catch regressions early, and integrate these checks into everyday publishing workflows.

Play section audio

Keyboard and focus.

Strong keyboard navigation and reliable focus management sit at the centre of practical web accessibility. When a site works properly without a mouse, it becomes usable for people with mobility impairments, temporary injuries, power users who prefer keys for speed, and anyone navigating in constrained contexts such as a trackpad-free laptop setup. It also supports assistive technology behaviours, because many tools rely on predictable keyboard events and focus states to interpret what is happening on a page.

This topic is often treated as a compliance checkbox, yet the day-to-day impact is more measurable: fewer abandoned forms, smoother checkouts, more successful self-service journeys, and less support friction. For teams building on Squarespace, plus app-driven experiences in systems such as Knack, and automated workflows via Make.com, keyboard support becomes especially important once custom code, embedded components, or dynamic UI patterns enter the mix.

Ensure interactive elements work by keyboard.

Every interactive component should be reachable and usable with keys alone, including links, buttons, menus, form controls, carousels, tabs, and any custom widgets introduced through scripts. If a user can click it, they should be able to reach it with Tab and activate it with Enter or Space. This behaviour is a core expectation in WCAG 2.1, but it also functions as an engineering quality signal: it indicates the UI was built on predictable semantics rather than brittle click-only handlers.

In practice, keyboard accessibility often breaks when teams use non-interactive elements (like generic containers) as though they were controls. A “button” built from a styled container might respond to mouse clicks but never receive focus, never expose a name to assistive tech, and never respond to Enter. The fix is rarely complicated: use native elements where possible, and only reach for custom roles and ARIA when native semantics truly cannot represent the behaviour.

Practical steps to ensure keyboard access:

Navigate the entire page using Tab and Shift + Tab, then attempt to activate each control with Enter and Space.
Confirm that every visible control can receive focus. If something can be clicked but never receives focus, it is effectively invisible to keyboard users.
Prefer semantic elements such as <button> and <a> for interactions, rather than repurposing non-semantic containers.
When a custom control is unavoidable, ensure it has an accessible role, an accessible name, and keyboard event handling that mirrors native behaviour.

Common edge cases show up in e-commerce and SaaS flows. For example, a “quantity stepper” in a basket often becomes a pair of icons that respond to clicks but do not accept keyboard activation. Another frequent issue appears in pricing tables where the “most popular” plan is visually emphasised and clickable, yet only the small inner link is tabbable. A quick internal rule helps: the clickable area and the focusable area should match as closely as possible.

Keep focus order logical and predictable.

Focus order should follow the same mental model as reading the page. Keyboard users build a map of the interface based on where focus moves next. When the tab sequence jumps unexpectedly, users lose context, waste time, and can accidentally trigger the wrong action. A logical order tends to be top-to-bottom and left-to-right, but the real requirement is predictability that matches the layout and the intended journey.

The most dependable way to achieve this is structural: the source order of the HTML should reflect the visual order of the UI. When visual positioning is heavily manipulated with CSS or when elements are injected dynamically, the tab order may no longer match what the eyes see. This is where teams should be careful with reordering techniques and with placing important interactive items (such as primary calls to action) outside the natural document flow.

Tips for maintaining a logical focus order:

Use headings and landmarks to create a clear hierarchy, and keep interactive items near the content they affect.
Use tabindex sparingly. A value of 0 can be appropriate to include a custom element in the natural order, but positive values frequently create confusing, fragile sequences.
Retest focus order after layout changes, CMS edits, or new embedded elements, since these often introduce unexpected focus stops.

Dynamic pages bring extra complexity. In a Knack portal, for example, a modal form might be injected after a button is pressed. If focus is not moved into the modal, the keyboard user may keep tabbing “behind” it. Similarly, if a Make.com automation updates a status message or reveals additional fields after a selection, focus should be guided to the newly relevant area or at least remain stable, so the user does not feel the interface “teleported”. A consistent approach is to treat focus as part of the state machine: when the UI state changes meaningfully, focus should be intentionally managed.

Use visible, consistent focus styling.

Keyboard access only becomes usable when the active element is visually obvious. Focus indicators are the user’s pointer. Removing focus outlines for aesthetic reasons is one of the most damaging and common accessibility mistakes, because it turns navigation into guesswork. Focus styling should be high-contrast, clearly visible on all backgrounds, and consistent across the site so users learn what “active” looks like.

Consistency matters because modern sites often combine multiple component sources: native Squarespace blocks, embedded third-party forms, custom scripts, and commerce elements. If each area has a different focus treatment, users must continually re-learn where they are. A unified design token approach helps: one primary focus ring style applied to links, buttons, form inputs, and interactive widgets, with minor variations only when necessary for clarity.

Best practices for focus styles:

Use a distinct outline, shadow, or background change that is visible at a glance.
Check visibility against light and dark sections, images, gradients, and patterned backgrounds.
Test across major browsers and devices, since default focus rendering differs and custom CSS can behave inconsistently.

Teams that want a more refined look can style focus without losing usability. For example, a thicker outline with a small offset can be both on-brand and clear. It is also worth testing in realistic conditions: low-brightness screens, outdoor glare, and high zoom levels. Focus visibility is not only about colour contrast; it is also about shape, thickness, and the ability to stand out from surrounding UI noise.

Avoid keyboard traps in modals and menus.

A keyboard trap occurs when focus enters a component and cannot escape using standard keys. This often happens in modals, off-canvas menus, cookie banners, and complex dropdowns. Traps are more than inconvenient: they can make the site unusable for someone relying on a keyboard or switch device. Good patterns allow Escape to close transient UI, keep Tab movement inside open overlays when appropriate, and return focus to a sensible place when the overlay closes.

Modals need particular care. When a modal opens, focus should move into it, typically to the first interactive element or the modal heading if the content requires context first. While open, Tab should cycle within the modal controls rather than wandering behind it. On close, focus should return to the trigger element, so the user’s position in the journey is preserved. This is not just “nice”; it prevents disorientation and repeated navigation work.

Strategies to prevent traps:

Support Escape to close modals and dismissible menus, unless a genuine safety constraint exists (for example, a critical confirmation flow).
Implement focus return to the trigger element after close, maintaining continuity.
Test overlays with only a keyboard, including opening, interacting, closing, and continuing navigation.

Edge cases appear when there are multiple stacked overlays, such as a cookie banner over a newsletter popup, or a cart drawer over a product zoom. The safest approach is to ensure only one overlay can be active at a time, or to create a strict stacking strategy where focus management is owned by the topmost layer. Another common issue is “hidden but focusable” elements: items visually off-screen or opacity-hidden can still receive focus, causing the user to tab into nothing. Preventing that typically requires toggling visibility in a way that also removes the elements from the tab sequence.

Add skip links and useful shortcuts.

Skip links reduce unnecessary tabbing by letting users jump past repeated navigation to the main content. On content-heavy sites, they can save dozens of keystrokes per page, especially when there are large headers, cookie notices, or multi-level menus. Skip links also help screen reader users, because they provide quick access to core content areas without forcing repeated traversal of global elements.

Skip links are simple but should be implemented with care. They should be the first focusable element on the page, appear when focused, and land on a meaningful target such as the start of the main content. The destination should itself be focusable, or the browser may not move focus as intended, leaving the user uncertain whether anything happened. This is especially relevant when the main content begins with non-focusable headings or generic containers.

How to implement skip links:

Place the skip link at the top of the page and reveal it on focus rather than keeping it permanently visible.
Point it to a clear main content anchor that exists on every template.
Verify behaviour on multiple browsers and on mobile with external keyboards, because focus handling can vary.

For larger sites and web apps, shortcuts can go beyond a single skip link. A knowledge base might offer a keyboard shortcut to jump to search, or an account portal might provide shortcuts to billing, settings, and recent activity. Any shortcut strategy should avoid hijacking common browser or assistive technology combinations, and should be documented in an accessible way. The goal is not cleverness, it is reduced friction.

When these practices are treated as standard build requirements, accessibility stops being a late-stage scramble and becomes a durable part of quality. From here, the next step is to look at how keyboard and focus decisions interact with semantics, ARIA usage, and screen reader expectations, since a site can be tabbable yet still confusing if labels, roles, and announcements are not handled carefully.

Play section audio

Contrast and text sizing.

Strong readability is not a “nice to have” in web design. It is a practical requirement that influences comprehension, conversion, and long-term trust. When accessibility is treated as a first-class design constraint, content becomes easier to consume for everyone, including people with low vision, colour vision deficiency, dyslexia, cognitive fatigue, temporary impairments (such as a migraine), and situational constraints (such as bright sunlight or a cracked screen).

In modern teams, especially founders and SMB operators moving quickly, readability often breaks when brand styling takes priority over real-world usage. Pages can look beautiful in a design tool, then fail on mobile, fail in dark mode, fail on older displays, or fail when marketing swaps out a hero image. Treating contrast and typography as measurable system rules makes the site more resilient, reduces customer support load, and improves the clarity of every customer journey step.

Ensure sufficient contrast ratios for readability across devices.

Contrast is the difference in luminance between foreground and background. Without adequate contrast, visitors spend more effort decoding words than understanding meaning, which increases bounce and decreases task completion. The standard reference is WCAG, which recommends at least 4.5:1 contrast for normal text and 3:1 for large text. These ratios are not theoretical; they reflect legibility thresholds for common visual conditions and typical screen environments.

Contrast failures are most likely to appear in “brand-led” UI patterns: thin type on gradients, light grey text used for elegance, buttons with subtle borders, and text placed over photos. Even when contrast technically passes in one context, it can fail in another. For example, a light grey label might pass over pure white, then fail when placed over a tinted card background or when a mobile browser applies colour management differently.

Colour also has behavioural effects, but those effects only matter if users can read the content first. High contrast improves scanning, reduces time-to-understand, and makes call-to-action text more unambiguous. In commerce flows, this matters on product pages, price blocks, delivery notes, and error messages where misreading can directly affect revenue.

Testing contrast ratios.

Contrast should be tested as a repeatable step, not an occasional check. Tools such as WAVE, Lighthouse audits, and browser extensions can flag insufficient contrast in situ. Testing should also cover the “messy reality” states where issues hide: hover states, disabled buttons, placeholder text, cookie banners, and announcement bars.

Contrast checking is most effective when it becomes part of a design system. That means defining a palette with “approved pairs” (text colour + background colour combinations) and refusing ad hoc overrides. Where teams must support multiple themes, such as light and dark mode, each theme needs its own contrast-approved pairings. Text over images should be treated as a special case, often requiring an overlay, a solid backing, or a different placement rule, because the background luminance changes across the image.

Audit contrast on key templates, then on reusable components (buttons, cards, nav, forms).
Test on mobile in bright conditions, not only on a desktop monitor.
Include focus states and error states, since those commonly use low-contrast reds or greys.
Where possible, lock accessible colour tokens into the styling system so future edits do not regress.

Avoid using small text sizes, especially on mobile.

Small type is one of the fastest ways to lose users, especially on phones where viewing distance, glare, and scrolling speed amplify readability problems. Even if a brand aims for “minimalist” aesthetics, the site still needs a baseline that supports comfortable reading. The usual minimum for body copy is around 16px, but the more useful principle is: text should remain readable at typical viewing distance without pinch-zoom.

Typography choices should account for more than size. The font’s x-height, letterforms, weight, and spacing can make 16px feel large or small. A thin, low-contrast font may be technically 16px but functionally illegible for many users. Similarly, long paragraphs set in a lightweight font can create fatigue even when they pass contrast checks. Good readability is a combined outcome of font sizing, contrast, line-height, and layout width.

Teams that publish frequently, such as SaaS knowledge bases or agency blogs, should treat text sizing as an operational quality control step. Articles are often pasted into CMS editors from documents, and inline styling can cause unexpected size shifts. Using consistent styles prevents a scenario where one post is comfortable and the next feels like fine print.

Responsive typography.

Responsive type ensures the same content remains legible across a wide range of screens, from small phones to large desktop displays. A common approach uses CSS media queries to adjust font-size and spacing at defined breakpoints. A more modern approach uses fluid scaling so text grows smoothly between breakpoints, avoiding sudden jumps that can make layouts feel inconsistent.

Responsive typography should not only scale font-size. It should also adjust line-height, spacing, and container width rules so readability stays stable. For instance, increasing font-size without increasing line-height can make paragraphs feel cramped, while increasing line-height without managing line length can make scanning harder. A practical workflow is to define: a base body size, a heading scale, and a set of rules for mobile, tablet, and desktop that are tested with real articles, not short sample sentences.

Use relative units (rem/em) where possible so users’ browser font preferences can scale the page.
Validate that headings do not become oversized on small screens, causing excessive scrolling.
Confirm that form labels, button text, and navigation remain readable without wrapping awkwardly.
Check that text remains readable when the user increases browser zoom to 200%.

Do not rely solely on colour to convey information.

Colour-only communication creates avoidable exclusion. Users with colour blindness may not perceive the difference between red and green, and even users without colour vision deficiency can miss colour cues under poor lighting or low-quality displays. Any critical meaning, such as error states, success states, required fields, or warnings, should be communicated through more than colour alone.

In operational terms, colour-only UI often causes preventable support issues. A user who cannot tell whether a field is invalid may abandon a form, or repeatedly submit without understanding what is wrong. A shopper who cannot see a discount badge may miss an offer. A SaaS user who cannot identify a selected tab may think the product is broken. The solution is not to avoid colour, but to pair it with text, icons, patterns, or structural cues.

Where the brand uses subtle tones, it becomes even more important to provide explicit meaning. “Soft red border” is not a message. “Payment failed: card declined” is a message. The clearer the UI is, the less cognitive load it creates, and the more reliably users can move forward.

Implementing multiple cues.

Multiple cues combine visual and textual signals so meaning remains intact regardless of how colour is perceived. This can be done through icon + text, pattern + label, or shape + position. The most reliable method is direct text labelling because it survives screenshots, translations, and assistive technologies. Iconography helps scanning but should not be the only channel.

Assistive technology testing matters here. A visible icon that lacks an accessible name may communicate nothing to screen readers. Similarly, a status message that appears only as a colour change may never be announced. Testing should cover keyboard navigation and focus order because many users depend on those patterns to interpret what changed after an action.

Pair status colours with short labels such as “Error”, “Warning”, or “Success”.
Use icons with accessible names, not decorative-only symbols.
For charts, pair colour series with patterns, markers, or direct data labels.
For form validation, place error text near the field and summarise errors at the top for long forms.

Maintain appropriate line length and height for text.

Even with good contrast and font size, layout choices can still make reading hard. Line length that is too long forces the eyes to travel far across the screen, making it easier to lose the next line. Line length that is too short creates excessive hyphenation and frequent line breaks, which disrupts flow. A common target is 50 to 75 characters per line for long-form text, though the ideal varies by font and audience.

Line height (leading) is equally important. Too tight, and text feels cramped; too loose, and paragraphs can feel disconnected. A typical starting point is 1.5 times the font size for body text, then adjusted based on font characteristics. These details influence both comprehension and perceived professionalism, which impacts how trustworthy the brand feels, particularly for service businesses and SaaS where credibility is part of the product.

Line length and line height also influence scanning. Many business pages rely on skimming rather than full reading: service pages, pricing pages, feature comparisons, onboarding docs. Good spacing supports skimming by making headings, lists, and key statements visually separable, so users can find the part that answers their question without effort.

CSS for line length and height.

Line length is often controlled by container width rather than text styling. A simple, durable technique is to set a max-width on rich-text containers so paragraphs never stretch across ultra-wide displays. Line height can be set globally for body text, then refined for headings and small UI labels. Paragraph spacing should be deliberate because it creates rhythm and reduces visual clutter.

Teams should also watch for edge cases: long URLs, unbroken strings (such as order IDs), or imported content with unusual formatting. Those can break layouts, create horizontal scrolling, and damage readability. A resilient implementation includes rules for word wrapping and reasonable spacing around headings and lists so content remains readable even when the CMS content is imperfect.

Set max-width for content containers to control line length across large screens.
Use consistent line-height rules for body text and validate with long paragraphs.
Add paragraph spacing to separate ideas without relying on extra empty lines.
Validate layouts with long words, long links, and mixed formatting from pasted content.

Test with real content to ensure accessibility standards are met.

Accessibility checks that rely on placeholder text or “perfect” demo content frequently miss real problems. Real content has long headings, awkward phrasing, uneven paragraph lengths, and embedded links. It is the only honest test of how contrast, sizing, spacing, and layout behave in production. This is particularly important for content-heavy teams where posts and landing pages are built rapidly and edited over time.

Testing should include automated checks and human validation. Automated tools catch many issues quickly, but they cannot judge clarity, tone, or whether an instruction is actually understandable. Human testing with a diverse set of users reveals friction that metrics alone cannot show, such as confusion caused by subtle UI cues, or fatigue caused by dense typography on mobile.

For businesses running on platforms like Squarespace, iterative improvements can be made by auditing templates, then validating key page types: homepage, services, product detail, checkout, blog post, and contact forms. This keeps effort contained while improving the parts of the site that affect revenue and support load most directly.

Gathering feedback.

Feedback is most useful when it is easy to provide and easy to act on. A simple feedback mechanism on key pages can surface issues early, especially after a redesign or new content rollout. Qualitative feedback should be paired with behavioural data: high exit rates on a form step can indicate a readability or clarity issue, not just “lack of interest”.

It also helps to build accessibility into routine workflows. When teams treat accessibility as a periodic project, it degrades over time as content grows. When teams treat it as a maintenance habit, it stays stable. Regular reviews of contrast, typography, and content structure reduce the chance that a new brand colour, new font, or new layout quietly breaks readability across the site.

Run quick user sessions with people who use keyboard navigation and screen magnifiers.
Review top landing pages monthly for contrast and readability regressions.
Collect feedback at the point of friction, such as after failed form submissions.
Track recurring questions, since unclear content often shows up as repeated support queries.

Contrast and typography work best when treated as connected system rules rather than isolated design choices. Once a site has reliable contrast, comfortable text sizing, multi-cue communication, and readable line spacing, everything else becomes easier: content feels clearer, interfaces feel faster, and users spend less energy figuring out what is happening. The next step is to apply the same discipline to interaction patterns, including focus states, keyboard navigation, and form behaviour, where many accessibility issues still hide in plain sight.

Play section audio

Common failures in web accessibility.

Understanding common failures in web accessibility matters because most barriers are not “edge cases”. They are repeatable patterns that appear in everyday builds, especially when teams move quickly, rely on visual QA, or customise templates without a defined accessibility checklist. When these failures ship, they affect real revenue and real people: users abandon forms, bounce from product pages they cannot read, or fail to complete checkout because a menu cannot be reached without a mouse.

From a business perspective, accessibility is not only about avoiding compliance risk. Accessible interfaces are usually clearer, faster to use, easier to maintain, and more resilient across devices, browsers, and assistive technology. The sections below unpack the most common mistakes, explain why they happen, and outline practical ways teams can prevent them during design, implementation, and ongoing content operations.

Missing labels on inputs and icon-only buttons.

Missing or unclear labelling is one of the highest-impact failures because it breaks basic understanding. A form field without a label may look obvious to a sighted user when the placeholder text is visible, but placeholders disappear as soon as typing begins, and they are not a reliable substitute for a label. For people using screen readers, the label is often the primary cue that explains what a control does and what information is expected.

This problem becomes more frequent with icon-only controls. A magnifying glass, hamburger icon, or bin symbol can be intuitive for many users, yet assistive technology cannot infer intent from visuals alone. Without an accessible name, the control may be announced as “button” with no context. In practice, that can block key journeys such as search, navigation, and deleting items. It also creates silent failure in analytics, where teams see form drop-off without understanding that users were unable to interpret the interface.

Best practices for labels.

Associate a visible text label with every input and link it correctly using the for attribute tied to the input’s id, so clicking the label focuses the field and assistive technology reads the relationship accurately.
Give icon-only buttons an accessible name that reflects the action. For example, a bin icon should expose “Delete”, and a pencil icon should expose “Edit”, so controls remain unambiguous when icons fail to load or are not perceived.
Use aria-label only when a visible label is not feasible. When a visible label exists, prefer linking the label properly rather than adding ARIA that can drift out of sync with the UI copy.
Run regular audits on high-value flows such as contact forms, quote requests, checkouts, and login screens. Pair automated checks with manual testing using a screen reader to confirm labels are announced in a useful way.

For teams working in Squarespace, labelling issues often appear when custom code blocks replace native form elements or when icon buttons are added via injected scripts. A simple internal rule helps: if an element can be clicked, it must also have a meaningful name when read aloud.

Poor contrast and hidden focus indicators.

Colour and focus visibility failures tend to ship because they are “invisible” to many teams during routine review. A brand palette might look elegant on a designer’s screen, yet become illegible on a mobile device outdoors or for users with low vision. Similarly, keyboard focus outlines are often removed for aesthetic reasons, which can make a site feel polished while silently excluding keyboard users.

The WCAG contrast recommendations exist because readability is not subjective at scale. Text that fails minimum contrast is harder to scan, increases cognitive load, and leads to misreads in pricing tables, product specs, and legal notes. Hidden focus indicators are even more disruptive: when a person navigates by keyboard, they need to see where they are on the page. Without a visible focus state, navigation turns into guesswork, and the user is forced into trial-and-error.

Improving contrast and focus visibility.

Use contrast-checking tools such as WAVE to verify that text meets ratio requirements for normal and large text, and repeat the test after any design refresh or brand update.
Implement clear focus styles in CSS. Focus indicators should be obvious, not subtle, and should work across interactive elements including links, buttons, form fields, and custom components.
Test pages in varied lighting conditions and on real devices. A colour that “passes” on a desktop monitor can still be difficult on smaller screens with glare.
Choose palettes that remain distinguishable for colour-vision deficiencies. Where colour encodes meaning, pair it with text or icons so the state is not communicated by colour alone.

A useful operational habit is to treat focus styling as a core UI component, not decoration. When teams standardise focus states alongside typography and spacing, accessibility becomes harder to accidentally remove later.

Incorrect heading hierarchy and “div soup”.

Heading hierarchy is one of the easiest issues to avoid, yet one of the most common in production content. When headings are used only for styling rather than structure, pages turn into a flat wall of text for screen reader users. People who rely on heading navigation scan by jumping between heading levels, similar to how sighted users skim by looking at bold section titles.

“Div soup” typically happens when teams build with non-semantic containers or when content editors choose heading sizes based on appearance. The result is confusing jumps, such as moving from a main heading straight to a third-level heading, or using headings where plain text should be used. Search engines also interpret headings to infer content structure, so poor hierarchy can reduce clarity for both accessibility and SEO.

Establishing a clear heading structure.

Use a single h1 for the page’s primary topic, then nest sections with h2, subsections with h3, and so on, reflecting the logical outline of the content.
Avoid skipping levels. If a section is not a subsection of the previous one, it should not be given a deeper heading level simply to make it look smaller.
Prefer semantic elements where possible, and reserve generic containers for layout only. Semantics communicate intent, which is what assistive technology uses to help users navigate.
Review heading structure during content updates, not just during initial development. Many hierarchy issues appear later when new sections are added under deadline pressure.

In practice, teams can treat headings like a table of contents that must make sense even when the page is read without visual styling. If the outline reads clearly, the structure is usually accessible.

Interactive elements that aren’t keyboard accessible.

Keyboard accessibility is a baseline requirement because many users cannot use a mouse, and many others choose not to. Users with mobility impairments, repetitive strain injuries, temporary injuries, or power users who prefer keyboard shortcuts all depend on predictable tab navigation. When interactive elements cannot be reached or activated by keyboard, they are effectively unavailable.

This problem often appears in custom UI components built with JavaScript, such as dropdown menus, modals, carousels, accordions, and “fancy” select inputs. If the component is not built with correct roles, keyboard events, and focus management, users may get trapped inside a modal, lose focus when content updates, or be unable to open and close controls. These are not theoretical issues, they frequently block checkout, booking flows, and onboarding steps.

Ensuring keyboard accessibility.

Test every interactive path using only the keyboard. Ensure that users can reach, activate, and exit each element with standard keys such as Tab, Shift+Tab, Enter, and Escape where appropriate.
Keep tab order logical and aligned to the visual flow. When the DOM order differs from the layout, keyboard navigation can feel chaotic and unpredictable.
Avoid building custom controls that ignore native patterns. When custom components are necessary, implement full keyboard support and focus management rather than only click events.
Provide clear interaction hints for complex widgets. Instructions should be visible and concise, and they should not rely on hover-only tooltips.

For teams deploying enhancements through embedded scripts on templated platforms, keyboard testing must be part of release checks. A component that looks polished but fails keyboard use is not a “nice-to-have” issue, it is a functional defect.

Clear error messages that are not solely colour-based.

Error handling is where many websites lose trust. A form that highlights a field in red without explaining the problem forces users to guess, and that disproportionately affects people with colour blindness, low vision, cognitive differences, and anyone completing the form quickly on mobile. Clear errors reduce abandonment because they shorten the time between mistake and correction.

Good error messaging is both a content and engineering practice. The interface should explain what went wrong, where it happened, and how to fix it. If validation happens only after submission, users may face a long list of problems with no clear order. If validation happens inline, it must avoid being overly aggressive, such as showing an error while the user is still typing a partially complete value.

Best practices for error messages.

Place error text next to the relevant field and ensure it is programmatically associated with the input so assistive technology announces it at the right time.
Use descriptive language that guides correction. “Password must be at least 12 characters” is actionable; “Invalid password” is not.
Combine text with an icon or pattern, but never rely on colour alone. Visual cues should reinforce meaning, not carry it by themselves.
Use inline validation thoughtfully. Validate on blur or after a reasonable threshold, and preserve user input so errors do not force re-entry.

An often-missed edge case is error summaries. When a long form fails validation, providing a short summary at the top with links to each problematic field helps keyboard and screen reader users avoid hunting for errors across the page.

Inaccessible multimedia content.

Multimedia is powerful for education and marketing, yet it is also a common exclusion point. Video content without captions blocks deaf and hard-of-hearing users, while audio-only content without transcripts blocks users who cannot hear it or cannot listen in their current environment. Images without alt text remove context for screen reader users and can even break comprehension when the image contains essential instructions, pricing, or diagrams.

Multimedia accessibility is not only a compliance matter. Captions improve comprehension for non-native speakers, transcripts turn audio into indexable text for search engines, and descriptive alternatives make content more reusable in sales, support, and documentation workflows.

Enhancing multimedia accessibility.

Add captions to all videos, including marketing clips and product demos. Captions should be accurate and timed properly, not auto-generated without review.
Provide audio descriptions when visual context is required to understand the content, such as on-screen steps in a tutorial or important visual cues in a demonstration.
Write meaningful alt text for images. Alt text should describe purpose, not just appearance, and it should be omitted when an image is purely decorative.
Offer transcripts for audio content and for videos when feasible. Transcripts support scanning, quoting, and translation workflows.

Teams often overlook embedded third-party players. It is worth checking that the player controls are keyboard accessible and properly labelled, because captions alone do not help if a user cannot start playback.

Failure to use accessible navigation.

Navigation failures frequently show up as vague link text, inconsistent menus, or complex mega-menus that work only on hover. When navigation is not accessible, users cannot build a mental model of the site, which increases bounce rates and reduces the perceived credibility of the brand. For assistive technology users, navigation can also become noisy if repeated blocks are not structured sensibly.

Accessible navigation is largely about predictability and clarity. Links should describe destinations, menus should work across keyboard and touch, and patterns should stay consistent between pages. A user should not have to relearn navigation every time they move from a blog article to a product page.

Improving navigation accessibility.

Write descriptive link text that makes sense out of context. “View pricing plans” is clearer than “Learn more”.
Keep navigation placement and structure consistent across the site so users can anticipate where key pages live.
Test navigation using keyboard and screen readers to confirm that menu states, current page indicators, and submenu behaviours are announced clearly.
Offer alternative routes such as a site search or sitemap for large content libraries, especially when navigation depth increases.

Navigation is also a content operations issue. When teams add new pages rapidly, menu sprawl can harm usability. Periodic pruning and grouping can improve accessibility and conversion at the same time.

Neglecting mobile accessibility.

Mobile accessibility is not limited to responsive layouts. Many barriers occur because touch targets are too small, text becomes cramped, or sticky elements cover content and trap focus. Users with motor impairments may struggle to tap small controls, and users with low vision may rely on zoom, which can break fixed layouts or cause overlapping elements.

Mobile accessibility also intersects with performance. Heavy scripts, oversized images, and complex animations can increase load time and battery use, which impacts everyone but can be especially punishing for users relying on assistive technologies that already add overhead. A site that is technically “accessible” but slow and unstable still creates exclusion through friction.

Best practices for mobile accessibility.

Build genuinely responsive layouts that reflow content cleanly and preserve reading order, rather than simply shrinking desktop UI.
Meet recommended touch target sizes, including adequate spacing between targets to prevent accidental taps.
Test on real devices with mobile screen readers and zoom enabled to identify overlap, trapped focus, and hidden controls.
Support alternative interaction patterns where possible, such as voice input and platform-native accessibility gestures, by avoiding custom behaviours that break standard expectations.

When teams treat mobile accessibility as its own QA track, they often find issues that desktop testing never reveals, such as off-canvas menus that cannot be closed or cookie banners that cover form submit buttons.

Addressing these failures works best as a system rather than a one-off clean-up. Teams that bake accessibility into design tokens, component libraries, content templates, and release checklists spend less time firefighting later. The next step is usually moving from spotting issues to building a repeatable auditing workflow, including automated checks, manual keyboard testing, and assistive technology validation.

Play section audio

Quick testing checklist.

Running a fast accessibility sweep can reveal usability issues that silently block conversions, increase support load, and exclude users with disabilities. A checklist approach works because it forces a site team to validate the highest-impact touchpoints first: navigation, content structure, readability, forms, and mobile interaction. When these basics are handled well, the site becomes easier for everyone to use, including users on older devices, in low-light environments, or with temporary impairments such as a broken arm or eye strain.

This section breaks down a practical set of tests that can be completed quickly on key pages such as the homepage, a core service or product page, a pricing page, and at least one form flow (contact, checkout, lead capture). The goal is not to “prove” accessibility is perfect; it is to expose the most common barriers early, then feed fixes into the normal maintenance cycle.

Perform keyboard-only navigation tests.

Keyboard navigation is a foundation of accessible interaction because many users cannot reliably use a mouse or trackpad. The test is simple: navigate through essential pages using only the keyboard and confirm that every interactive element can be reached, understood, and activated. If the site fails here, users can become trapped before they ever reach key information, a form, or a checkout step.

During the pass, the site team should validate that the focus indicator is always visible and that it moves in a predictable order. Predictable means it follows the reading flow and visual layout rather than jumping randomly around the page. If focus disappears (often caused by CSS that removes outlines) or lands behind overlays, the site becomes guesswork for keyboard users. A related failure is a “keyboard trap”, where focus enters a component and cannot escape, commonly seen in poorly implemented modals, carousels, and cookie banners.

Dropdown menus deserve special scrutiny because they often work on hover with a mouse but fail with keyboard input. The same goes for modal dialogs: they should trap focus intentionally while open (so users do not tab into the page behind), then return focus to the triggering element when closed. If a modal closes but focus jumps to the top of the page, users lose context and may abandon the task.

Teams working in Squarespace should pay attention to custom code blocks, injected scripts, and third-party widgets, since these are frequent sources of keyboard issues. In many cases the underlying platform templates are reasonable, but the last 10 percent of customisation introduces the failure. For verification, automated tools can help spot obvious problems, but manual testing catches real-world behaviour such as focus order and usability.

Key actions:

Use Tab to move through links, buttons, and form fields, and confirm every essential element is reachable.
Use Shift + Tab to move backwards and confirm the reverse flow is also predictable.
Confirm the focus indicator is always visible and not hidden by styling or overlays.
Open and close dropdowns, menus, modals, cookie banners, and accordions, and confirm focus never becomes trapped.

Check heading structure and hierarchy.

Headings are not decoration; they are structural metadata that assistive technologies use to navigate content efficiently. When headings are applied in a logical hierarchy, screen reader users can skim a page by jumping between sections, much like sighted users scan visually. When headings are out of order, repeated incorrectly, or used purely for styling, the page becomes confusing and slow to navigate.

A healthy structure typically uses one page-level title, then divides content into sections and sub-sections. The exact markup varies by platform, but the principle stays the same: headings should be used semantically, not as “big text”. Problems often appear when designers pick heading levels based on size, or when page builders generate multiple top-level headings without real meaning. While multiple top-level headings can be valid in some modern patterns, many sites accidentally create duplicates that do not map to a clear document structure, which harms navigation for assistive tech users.

Testing is straightforward: use built-in browser accessibility tools or a screen reader to list headings and step through them. The list should read like a table of contents that accurately describes the page. It should not skip levels without a reason (for example jumping from a second-level heading to a fourth-level heading), and it should not include headings that contain vague text such as “Learn more” without context. Beyond compliance, this structure also supports SEO because search engines use headings to understand topical structure and content emphasis.

For complex sites, it is also useful to add landmarks and roles where appropriate, but the biggest wins often come from simply making headings truthful and consistent. A practical check is to confirm that each heading is followed by content that delivers on its promise. If a heading says “Pricing”, but the section contains general marketing copy with no pricing detail, users experience friction whether they use a screen reader or not.

Key actions:

Inspect headings using a browser accessibility panel or screen reader heading navigation.
Confirm the hierarchy progresses logically and does not skip levels without intent.
Remove or correct duplicated top-level headings where they do not represent real page titles.
Check that the content under each heading matches the heading’s promise and provides clear context.

Run contrast spot checks on essentials.

Contrast determines whether text and interface elements remain readable across different users and conditions. Low contrast can block users with visual impairments, but it also hurts usability for people using a phone outdoors, a low-quality display, or a dim screen to save battery. Because contrast issues often cluster around brand colours, buttons, and UI “accent” text, a targeted spot check catches the majority of problems quickly.

A contrast pass should compare foreground and background colour combinations for body text, headings, navigation links, button labels, form labels, helper text, and error messages. Most teams align with WCAG 2.1 AA, which sets minimum ratios for normal and large text. The practical approach is to test the most common combinations first, then expand into edge cases like text placed on images, text over gradients, and text within banners that change colour across breakpoints.

Colour must not be the only way information is conveyed. If an error state is communicated only by turning a field border red, it will fail users with colour vision deficiencies and can also fail users on displays that wash colours out. A better pattern pairs colour with a clear text message and, when relevant, an icon or descriptive label. The same applies to charts and infographics: colour-coded legends should be paired with labels, patterns, or direct annotations so meaning is not locked behind colour perception.

Images and graphics also require alternative text where they communicate meaning. Decorative images can be treated differently, but any image that informs a decision, explains a process, or contains text should have an appropriate alternative. Teams should be cautious with “screenshot text” inside images because it is not searchable, not resizable, and usually fails accessibility unless supported properly with text alternatives.

Key actions:

Use a contrast checker to test text, buttons, and key UI components against the background they appear on.
Ensure status and errors are communicated with text and not colour alone.
Review text placed on images, gradients, or video overlays, since these are common contrast failure zones.
Add meaningful alternative text for informative images and ensure decorative imagery does not add noise.

Trigger form errors on purpose.

Forms are where many sites lose leads, not because the offer is wrong, but because the interaction breaks for a subset of users. Intentional error testing reveals whether the form guides users back to success or punishes them with vague messages. A good form experience supports users with different cognitive loads, language proficiency levels, and assistive technology needs.

To test properly, submit the form with required fields blank, enter invalid data (such as an email without an “@”), and create multiple errors at once. Then check the behaviour: does the form explain what went wrong, where it went wrong, and how to fix it? Error messages should be specific, placed near the field, and written in plain language. “Invalid input” is rarely useful. “Enter a valid email address such as name@example.com” is actionable.

Keyboard access matters in error states. After submission, focus should move to a helpful location, often the first invalid field or an error summary at the top that links to each problem field. Screen reader users should also be notified that errors occurred. This is where ARIA live regions can help by announcing updates without requiring the user to manually hunt for changes. Teams should use ARIA carefully; incorrect ARIA can make things worse, so it should supplement solid HTML structure rather than replace it.

Labels must be properly associated with inputs. Placeholder text is not a label: it disappears when users type, it often has poor contrast, and it is not reliably announced as a label by assistive technologies. Clear labels also improve analytics and form completion rates because users understand what is being requested. For multi-step forms, teams should validate that progress indicators are accessible and that moving between steps does not reset entered data unexpectedly.

Key actions:

Submit with blank required fields and invalid entries to reveal error states.
Ensure messages explain what is wrong and how to correct it, in plain language.
Confirm errors and fields are reachable by keyboard, with a sensible focus move after submit.
Verify every input has a visible label correctly associated to the field.

Assess mobile tap targets and readability.

Mobile accessibility overlaps heavily with general mobile usability, but it becomes critical when users have motor impairments, tremors, or limited dexterity. Small tap targets, cramped link spacing, and low-contrast microcopy can turn a simple journey into repeated mis-taps and frustration. Since mobile traffic often dominates for services and e-commerce, this test directly protects revenue.

Tap targets such as buttons, links, toggles, and menu icons should be large enough and spaced far enough apart to avoid accidental activation. Many teams use a minimum target size guideline, but the practical test is better: attempt common tasks with one hand, on a small screen, while moving. If the site fails in that scenario, it will likely fail for many users with accessibility needs. Interactive components such as sliders and carousels often underperform on mobile because the swipe gesture competes with page scroll, so they should be tested carefully.

Readability on mobile is shaped by font size, line height, line length, and contrast. Text that looks fine on desktop can become dense on mobile if line height collapses or if the layout forces long, unbroken words and URLs. Responsive behaviour should be validated across multiple devices and orientations. Even if a team cannot test a full device lab, they can use responsive emulation plus at least one real iOS and one real Android device to catch differences in font rendering and touch behaviour.

Mobile also introduces accessibility considerations around zoom and text scaling. Users may increase system font size, enable bold text, or use screen magnification. A robust layout should not break when text grows. Buttons should not overlap, menus should remain usable, and content should not disappear off-screen. These edge cases are common failure points in heavily customised templates.

Key actions:

Test buttons and links for comfortable tapping and sufficient spacing, especially in menus and footers.
Check text sizing, line height, and contrast on multiple screen sizes and orientations.
Validate responsive layouts for common breakpoints and real devices where possible.
Enable system text scaling or zoom and confirm the layout remains usable without hidden actions.

Turn the checklist into a repeatable routine.

Once these checks are completed, the highest value move is to treat results as operational work rather than a one-off audit. Issues should be logged with clear reproduction steps, affected URLs, and severity, then scheduled into normal sprints or monthly maintenance. This keeps accessibility improvements tied to delivery habits, not goodwill.

Teams can also reduce repeated effort by standardising components. A single accessible button style, one modal pattern that handles focus correctly, and a consistent form error system will prevent the same problem appearing across dozens of pages. For organisations managing content at scale, maintaining a small internal “accessibility patterns” page can be more effective than long policy documents because it gives designers and developers something immediately actionable.

When site changes are frequent, lightweight tooling helps. Automated scans can catch regressions, while manual checks validate real-world experience. If the organisation uses Squarespace, injected code and third-party blocks should be reviewed as part of a release checklist because they are common regression vectors. Where it fits the workflow, a knowledge base or on-site help layer can also reduce confusion when users encounter friction, and tools such as CORE can be used to deliver instant, structured answers from existing documentation, reducing support tickets while keeping users moving.

The next step is to translate findings into fixes that map directly to accessibility standards, then prioritise by user impact and business risk. That progression keeps the work grounded: test, identify, remediate, and verify on a cadence that matches how the site evolves.

Play section audio

Remediation habits.

In the realm of web accessibility, building strong remediation habits is one of the most practical ways an organisation can move from “patching issues” to delivering reliably inclusive digital experiences. The core idea is simple: accessibility work should not be treated as a one-time clean-up before launch. It should operate like security, performance, and reliability, meaning it is maintained, monitored, and improved as the product evolves.

When teams approach accessibility as a consistent practice, the benefits extend well beyond compliance. Users who rely on assistive technology can complete tasks without friction, conversion flows become smoother for everyone, and support tickets often reduce because interfaces become clearer. For founders and SMB owners, this also protects brand trust: a site that blocks people from buying, booking, or applying is not only excluding users, it is quietly losing revenue and credibility.

Fix patterns, not just pages.

Systematically fix root causes.

Quick fixes have their place, especially when a live site is actively harming user access. Yet sustainable accessibility comes from identifying why issues keep appearing and correcting the underlying system that produces them. When teams focus on root cause analysis, they stop playing “whack-a-mole” with repeated defects and start improving the baseline quality of the product.

A recurring failure is often a signal that something deeper is wrong with a component library, a template, or a process. For example, if buttons are frequently missing accessible names, the issue is rarely “someone forgot”. It is more commonly that the design system allows icon-only buttons without enforcing a text label or aria-label equivalent, or that the CMS entry workflow makes it easy to publish decorative icons as functional controls.

Root-cause thinking also helps teams prioritise effectively. Fixing a single broken page might help a handful of users. Fixing a shared pattern can repair dozens or hundreds of instances across a site and prevent future regressions as new pages are created.

Steps to identify root causes:

Conduct structured audits to pinpoint recurring failures across templates, components, and content types.
Engage users who rely on assistive technologies for feedback, particularly around tasks such as checkout, form submission, booking, and account access.
Review design patterns against established standards such as WCAG, checking not only visuals but also interaction rules.
Analyse behavioural data to spot drop-offs that often correlate with accessibility barriers, such as rage clicks, repeated form attempts, or short sessions on critical pages.
Collaborate cross-functionally so design, development, content, and QA align on what “done” means for accessibility.

Root causes often hide inside “normal” workflows. A team might discover that content authors are unknowingly breaking heading order, that embedded third-party widgets are not keyboard accessible, or that a no-code automation tool is injecting labels incorrectly into form fields. Once a cause is identified, it becomes possible to create guardrails: validated components, CMS rules, linting, and QA checks that prevent the defect from reappearing.

Build accessible defaults into design patterns.

Accessibility becomes significantly easier when it is the default behaviour of the system, not an optional extra. Building accessible defaults into patterns, templates, and reusable blocks means each new page starts from a compliant baseline. For teams shipping quickly on platforms like Squarespace, this matters because speed and consistency often come from reusing structures rather than reinventing them.

Accessible defaults reduce the cognitive load on everyone. Designers are not forced to “remember” minimum contrast ratios each time. Developers are not repeatedly retrofitting labels or keyboard interactions. Content teams are less likely to unintentionally create barriers because the CMS components encourage correct structure.

A useful way to think about defaults is “safe by design”. If a component is used incorrectly, it should fail in a way that still remains usable, rather than failing silently and creating a barrier. A form field without a label is a classic example of a failure that harms assistive-technology users. A better default is a component that requires a label and will not render without it.

Examples of accessible defaults:

Using semantic HTML elements consistently so screen readers and other assistive tools can interpret structure correctly.
Setting contrast ratios for text and backgrounds to improve readability across devices and lighting conditions.
Making keyboard navigation a standard interaction requirement, including visible focus states.
Providing alternative text for meaningful images, while correctly marking decorative images so they do not create noise.
Designing forms with clear labels, helpful error messaging, and instructions that do not rely on colour alone.

Accessible defaults also include “interaction design defaults”. A dropdown menu that opens only on hover can exclude keyboard and touch users. A default pattern that supports click, keyboard, and touch interaction avoids that failure. Similarly, a modal that traps focus correctly prevents users from “falling behind” the overlay and getting lost.

For teams using shared systems, documenting these defaults inside a design system and pairing them with implementation guidance is what makes the behaviour repeatable. When defaults are codified, onboarding becomes easier and the organisation avoids relying on individual heroics to maintain accessibility.

Retest after changes.

Accessibility work does not end when a fix is shipped. Any change can introduce regressions, including visual redesigns, new content, CMS edits, third-party scripts, or “small” JavaScript tweaks. Retesting creates confidence that a fix stayed fixed, and that the product remains usable as it evolves. In practice, teams benefit from treating accessibility checks as part of their release hygiene, similar to performance testing or analytics validation.

Effective retesting requires both automation and human judgement. Automated tools catch a large class of issues quickly, but they cannot fully assess whether instructions make sense, whether focus order is intuitive, or whether an interface is cognitively overwhelming. Manual testing and assistive-technology checks provide that missing layer of truth.

Best practices for retesting:

Use automated scanning tools for quick detection of common failures such as missing labels, contrast problems, and invalid ARIA patterns.
Conduct manual testing with users or internal testers who simulate realistic tasks using keyboard-only navigation and screen readers.
Integrate checks into a CI/CD workflow so accessibility regressions are detected before deployment rather than after complaints.
Run scheduled audits, particularly after major design refreshes, theme changes, or platform upgrades.
Rotate team participation in retesting so accessibility knowledge spreads beyond a single specialist.

A practical method is to define “critical user journeys” and retest those reliably. For an e-commerce brand, that might be product discovery, add-to-basket, checkout, and account access. For a service business, it might be finding pricing, completing an enquiry form, and booking a call. If those journeys remain accessible across releases, the majority of business risk is reduced.

Document known limitations.

Strong documentation prevents accessibility work from becoming tribal knowledge that disappears when a contractor leaves or priorities shift. By documenting known limitations, a team clarifies what is currently imperfect, why it is imperfect, what the user impact is, and what the plan is to address it. This matters for products built on third-party platforms and embedded tools, where some issues cannot be fully resolved without vendor changes or major refactors.

Documentation also supports honest decision-making. If a team knowingly ships a limitation because the fix is large, they can still reduce harm by offering alternatives, support instructions, or accessible fallbacks. For example, if a scheduling widget is not fully keyboard accessible, an alternative booking path should be visible and easy to use. Clear documentation makes that mitigation explicit rather than accidental.

Key elements to document:

Specific accessibility issues identified, including who is impacted and what tasks are blocked.
Workarounds or mitigations implemented, including any alternative flows.
Future plans and ownership, including timelines, dependencies, and decision logs.
User feedback and reported pain points, captured in a way that can be traced to product work.
Links to relevant guidelines, internal patterns, and reference material for consistent fixes.

For operational efficiency, teams often keep this documentation close to where work happens: issue trackers, internal wikis, or product requirements. The goal is to make it discoverable at the moment decisions are made, not buried in a PDF. Good documentation becomes a quiet training system, helping new team members learn how accessibility is handled and why certain patterns exist.

Integrate accessibility checks into QA processes.

When accessibility is treated as a core part of quality assurance, problems are caught earlier, fixes are cheaper, and user harm is reduced. That is why accessibility checks belong inside the same QA process used for functional testing, regression testing, and content review. It also helps teams avoid a common failure mode: building features quickly and attempting to “bolt on” accessibility later when deadlines are tight.

Integration is partly about tooling and partly about accountability. Tools can flag common issues, but teams still need shared expectations and clear ownership. In mature workflows, accessibility acceptance criteria are written into tickets, QA sign-off includes accessibility validation, and teams define what happens when a release fails accessibility checks.

Strategies for integration:

Add accessibility checks to QA checklists so they are consistently applied across releases.
Train QA personnel on accessibility standards, including how to test keyboard flow, focus visibility, and form errors.
Adopt testing tools that fit the workflow and produce actionable output rather than vague warnings.
Create feedback loops between QA and development so fixes are tracked, verified, and not reopened repeatedly.
Build a culture of shared responsibility where accessibility is part of “definition of done”, not a specialist add-on.

For teams operating with no-code and automation platforms such as Make.com, accessibility QA should also include verifying automated content outputs. Automated emails, generated landing-page blocks, and injected scripts can accidentally break heading structure, label associations, or focus order. QA that includes accessibility checks helps ensure automation does not scale problems along with output.

Remediation habits work best when they form a loop: identify systemic causes, build safer defaults, verify changes with retesting, record known constraints, and enforce the standard through QA. Once that loop exists, accessibility becomes part of the organisation’s operating system, making future improvements faster and reducing the long-term cost of maintaining an inclusive digital presence.

Play section audio

Tooling discussion for web accessibility.

Within web accessibility, tools can accelerate progress, reduce guesswork, and help teams spot obvious gaps early. They are often the quickest way to move from “no idea where to start” to a shortlist of practical fixes. Yet tooling only works well when it is treated as part of an assessment system rather than the assessment itself.

Accessibility is a moving target because websites change, browsers update, assistive technologies evolve, and user expectations shift. A sensible approach assumes that checks will be repeated, prioritised, and refined over time. That mindset matters for founders, SMB owners, and product teams because accessibility is not just risk management. It also influences conversion rates, SEO performance, and customer satisfaction, particularly on content-heavy platforms such as Squarespace and data-driven apps like Knack.

Evaluate automated tool limitations.

Automated accessibility scanners are fast and useful, but they can only detect what they are programmed to measure. Most tools look for patterns in the DOM and CSS that correlate with known rule violations. That makes them excellent at catching repeatable issues, such as missing form labels, invalid heading order, or insufficient colour contrast. It also means they regularly miss problems that depend on meaning, intent, and human context.

A common example is alternative text. A scanner can flag missing alt text, yet it cannot judge whether the written description is accurate, helpful, or appropriate for the page goal. “Image of chart” might technically satisfy a checkbox, but it fails a real user who needs the trend, the comparison, or the decision the chart supports. The same gap appears with link text. A tool can identify “click here” as weak, but it cannot confirm whether surrounding context clarifies the destination for someone navigating via a screen reader’s link list.

Automated tools also struggle with interaction quality. They may confirm that a component is focusable, but they cannot reliably verify whether keyboard focus order matches user intent, whether focus is visibly obvious, or whether a modal traps focus correctly without breaking escape routes. These are the situations where compliance can look “green” while the experience is still frustrating for users relying on keyboard navigation or assistive tech.

Industry research regularly reinforces this point. A 2023 report by WebAIM found that the average home page contained around 50 distinct accessibility errors. That figure is useful for awareness, yet the more actionable lesson is what it implies: many issues are systemic, repeated across templates, and not resolved by a single pass of a scanner. It also highlights how teams can slip into a false sense of “done” when they treat automated output as a final verdict rather than a starting signal.

For operational teams, the practical risk is prioritisation distortion. If a tool does not detect a major usability issue, it can fall off the roadmap, even if it blocks real customers. For example, a checkout flow might technically pass contrast checks while still failing a motor-impaired user because tap targets are too small, spacing is inconsistent, or error recovery requires precise pointer movements.

Use manual checks for complete assessments.

Manual testing is the bridge between rule compliance and real usability. It helps teams validate whether a site is genuinely navigable, understandable, and predictable for people with disabilities. Automated tools can summarise patterns; humans can evaluate intent, clarity, and the “flow” of using the product end to end.

Manual checks catch problems that are invisible to scanners. A user with cognitive impairments may struggle with overloaded navigation, unclear labels, or steps that require remembering earlier information. A tool rarely flags that the interface demands too much working memory or that the content structure is confusing. Manual review can also reveal whether headings form a meaningful outline, whether instructions are written clearly, and whether error messages actually explain what went wrong and how to fix it.

A practical way to run manual checks is to test with a small set of repeatable scenarios that match business value, such as “find pricing”, “book a call”, “request a quote”, “log in”, “reset a password”, or “complete checkout”. For each scenario, teams can run a keyboard-only pass, a screen reader pass, and a zoom or reflow pass. This verifies whether the experience holds under real constraints rather than ideal conditions.

Manual checks align naturally with the principles in WCAG: content should be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. Those words are not abstract. “Perceivable” becomes “can someone understand what changed after clicking?” “Operable” becomes “can it be done without a mouse?” “Understandable” becomes “are the controls labelled like a human would label them?” “Robust” becomes “does the site still work across browsers, devices, and assistive tech?”

Where possible, involving users with disabilities provides the clearest signal of whether the site is inclusive. Even a small round of moderated testing can reveal high-impact friction: confusing focus behaviour, unclear error handling, components that announce incorrectly, or content that is technically available but practically hard to consume. Teams that cannot run formal user testing can still learn from structured internal simulations, but it helps to remain honest that simulation is a proxy, not a replacement.

Manual testing also surfaces design choices that influence usability in subtle ways. Button placement, reading order, content density, and the clarity of instructions affect success rates. These are not just “UX nice-to-haves”; they often determine whether someone can complete a task independently. In service businesses, that independence directly influences inbound enquiries and perceived professionalism.

Prioritise with tools and judgement.

Tools help teams see where problems cluster, but judgement decides what to fix first and how to fix it safely. An accessibility backlog needs triage, because not every issue carries the same user impact or business risk.

Automated output is best treated as a queue of hypotheses. A tool might report low colour contrast on a button label, yet the fix should consider brand palette constraints, design consistency, and how the component behaves across states such as hover, focus, disabled, and error. A rushed patch can create new failures, for example by “fixing” contrast in one state while breaking it in another, or by adding styling that hides focus indicators.

Effective prioritisation weighs severity against frequency and user impact. A small issue repeated across every page can be more damaging than a major issue on a rarely used view. Teams can also map issues to user groups. Poor contrast disproportionately harms low-vision users, while broken keyboard navigation disproportionately harms users with motor impairments or power users who navigate quickly without a mouse. This is where judgement becomes more important than raw counts.

For cross-functional teams, regular discussions prevent accessibility from being treated as a one-off “QA job”. When design, engineering, marketing, and operations share a consistent definition of severity, the team avoids wasteful cycles where minor scanner flags are polished while core user journeys remain broken. A healthy practice is to review accessibility findings alongside performance and SEO, because many improvements overlap in implementation discipline, semantic structure, and content clarity.

When teams are already running streamlined website operations through subscription-based maintenance, accessibility triage can become part of a predictable cadence. In that workflow, automated scanning creates signals, manual checks validate them, and fixes are shipped in batches that match release cycles.

Avoid treating overlays as “done”.

Accessibility overlays and widgets can look appealing because they promise speed: install a script, gain a toolbar, and appear more compliant. In practice, these solutions often provide surface-level adjustments while leaving the underlying structure unchanged. They might offer contrast toggles or font resizing, but they do not repair semantic HTML, form labelling, heading hierarchy, or meaningful alternative text.

The deeper issue is that overlays can shift responsibility away from the site itself. If the site is not built accessibly, an overlay is attempting to compensate at runtime, after the page has already been delivered. That approach is brittle. If the site’s markup is confusing, a screen reader user still receives confusing announcements, regardless of a toggle menu. If interactive elements were not built with correct focus management, an overlay may not fix it reliably across browsers and assistive technologies.

Another risk is that overlays can create new barriers. Some inject additional interface layers that interfere with assistive technologies, alter keyboard behaviour, or add unexpected focus stops. If the overlay UI is not fully accessible itself, it can become an extra obstacle that users must work around before they can even access the site’s content.

The more sustainable approach is to treat overlays, if used at all, as an optional convenience for a narrow set of preferences, not a compliance strategy. Real accessibility is achieved when the default experience works without requiring the user to activate a separate mode. This aligns with inclusive design principles and reduces support burden because fewer users need one-off assistance.

Adopt a repeatable testing checklist.

A checklist turns accessibility from a heroic effort into an operational routine. It improves consistency across pages, releases, and team members, especially when multiple contributors publish content or ship features. The goal is not to reduce accessibility to bureaucracy; it is to prevent regressions and ensure important checks happen even under time pressure.

A practical checklist can be built around common failure points and mapped to standards such as WCAG. It should be written in plain English and tied to observable outcomes. For example, instead of “ensure ARIA is correct”, a checklist item can read “confirm form fields announce a clear name, role, and state in a screen reader”. This keeps checks grounded in user experience rather than abstract rules.

Checklist coverage typically includes:

Semantic HTML structure: headings, lists, landmarks, and correct element choice for buttons and links.
Keyboard navigation: logical tab order, visible focus, no keyboard traps, and usable skip links where appropriate.
Images and media: meaningful alt text, captions for video, and transcripts when audio carries important information.
Forms: associated labels, clear instructions, accessible error messages, and validation that does not rely on colour alone.
Contrast and typography: readable text at different zoom levels, no content loss at 200% zoom, and clear interactive states.
Dynamic content: announcements for changes, accessible modals, and predictable behaviour for menus and accordions.

The checklist becomes more valuable when it is embedded into the team’s workflow. Running it during code review, pre-launch checks, and content publishing reduces late-stage surprises. For teams using platforms like Squarespace, the checklist can include CMS-specific items such as heading levels in content blocks, descriptive button labels, and consistent navigation structure across templates.

More robust evaluation comes from mixing methods rather than relying on one. Automated scans provide speed, manual checks provide nuance, and user testing provides truth. Expert review, even occasional, can help teams interpret edge cases such as complex tables, data visualisations, interactive filters, and multilingual content, where rule-based guidance often needs careful adaptation.

Tooling is at its best when it supports a balanced system: automated detection for breadth, human evaluation for depth, and a repeatable workflow for durability. With that foundation in place, the next step is to translate findings into practical fixes that can be shipped steadily without overwhelming the team’s roadmap.

Play section audio

Best practices for web accessibility.

Use semantic HTML for structure.

Semantic HTML is one of the highest-leverage accessibility decisions because it encodes meaning directly into the page, not just visual styling. When headings, landmarks, and interactive controls are expressed with the right elements, assistive technology can build an accurate model of the interface. That model is what enables efficient navigation for people using screen readers, voice control, switch devices, and keyboard-only input. The same structure also benefits maintainers and typically strengthens organic discoverability because search engines can infer page intent and hierarchy more reliably.

In practical terms, semantics means choosing the element that matches the job. A navigation area belongs in a nav-type structure, primary content belongs inside a main-type structure, and headings should reflect the outline rather than being picked for their default font size. A common failure mode is using generic containers for everything and then layering CSS to make it look right. That approach often “works visually” while remaining ambiguous to non-visual tools. Semantics helps accessibility at the root by aligning the DOM with human intent.

Why semantics matters.

Assistive tools can expose a meaningful page outline and landmark list.
Keyboard navigation becomes more predictable when interactive elements are native.
Maintenance improves because developers see intent, not just layout containers.

It is also worth noting the difference between “looks like” and “is”. A real button communicates role, state, and keyboard behaviour by default. A clickable container needs extra work to reach the same baseline and can still be inconsistent across devices. When teams build on platforms like Squarespace, the fastest wins often come from checking templates, blocks, and custom code injections to ensure they do not replace native controls with non-semantic approximations.

Write meaningful alt text for images.

Alt text exists to provide an equivalent experience when the image cannot be perceived. That does not always mean describing every pixel. It means conveying the purpose of the image in context. If the image is functional (for example, an icon used as the only label on a button), the text needs to communicate the action. If the image is informational (for example, a chart), the text should summarise the insight and, when necessary, link to a longer description. If the image is decorative, the best accessibility choice is usually to provide an empty alt attribute so assistive tools skip it rather than forcing noise into the reading flow.

Many teams fall into two extremes: writing vague labels (“banner”, “photo”) or writing a full paragraph that repeats nearby text. Strong alt text sits in the middle. It is specific, short, and context-aware. For example, “Golden Retriever playing fetch in a park” communicates scene and relevance; “Dog” does not. When an image supports a product or service, a short functional description can also support search visibility, but the priority remains human comprehension rather than keyword stuffing.

Alt text rules that hold up.

Describe the purpose of the image in the surrounding content, not just the subject.
Avoid “image of” and “picture of” because screen readers already announce it as an image.
Use empty alt for decorative visuals so users are not forced through irrelevant content.

Edge cases deserve deliberate handling. For logos, the organisation name is often enough. For icons, the action is usually better than the object (“Search” rather than “Magnifying glass”). For complex visuals like diagrams, a short alt summary plus an adjacent text explanation keeps the interface usable without hiding critical meaning in a place that is hard to access and maintain.

Make forms keyboard and screen-reader friendly.

Forms are where accessibility issues become business issues because they directly affect sign-ups, checkouts, enquiries, and operational workflows. Keyboard accessibility is the baseline: every interactive control must be reachable using Tab and operable with Enter or Space, without trapping focus. If a form cannot be completed without a mouse, it excludes users with motor impairments and also frustrates power users who navigate quickly via keyboard.

Screen-reader compatibility relies heavily on correct labelling and predictable focus order. Every input needs a label that is programmatically associated with it, not merely placed nearby. Placeholder text is not a substitute because it can disappear once a user starts typing and is often read inconsistently. Grouped fields such as shipping options or multi-part questions benefit from field grouping so the relationship between controls is announced clearly. This is particularly important for radio groups, checkbox clusters, and date fields split into multiple inputs.

Accessible form patterns.

Provide a label for every control and ensure it is correctly associated.
Group related controls and communicate the group purpose clearly.
Ensure focus order matches the visual order and does not jump unpredictably.

Error handling often separates “technically accessible” from “actually usable”. Errors should be specific, tied to the field, and explained in plain language. “Invalid input” is rarely sufficient. A better pattern is: what went wrong, why it matters, and how to fix it (“Enter a VAT number using the format GB123456789”). If the interface uses inline validation or modals, focus management becomes critical so users are not left interacting with hidden content.

Meet contrast and non-colour cues.

Contrast ratio determines whether text is readable under real-world conditions: glare, low-quality displays, cataracts, colour vision deficiencies, and simple fatigue at the end of a workday. WCAG guidance sets minimum ratios (commonly 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text) to reduce the probability that people are excluded by design choices. Contrast is not only about body text; it also applies to icons, focus indicators, and states such as disabled buttons or selected tabs.

Good contrast is not achieved by guessing. It is verified. Teams can use contrast checking tools during design and again in implementation because colour values can shift slightly due to overlays, opacity, and background images. When a brand palette includes subtle tones, the solution is not abandoning the palette. It is defining accessible combinations, establishing usage rules (for example, “light grey text only on white with font size X and weight Y”), and providing alternative tokens for dark mode or banners.

Practical contrast workflow.

Check contrast for text, icons, and focus outlines, not only headings.
Test in bright environments and on mobile screens where contrast issues are amplified.
Never rely on colour alone to indicate status; pair colour with labels, patterns, or icons.

Non-colour cues are essential for charts, form errors, and success messages. If a dashboard marks “failed” as red and “passed” as green without text labels, it forces colour interpretation. Adding icons, patterns, or explicit text improves accessibility and reduces mistakes for everyone, including users under time pressure.

Audit accessibility as an ongoing practice.

Accessibility work decays when it is treated as a launch checklist rather than an operational system. Standards evolve, design systems shift, and content teams add new pages with new patterns. WCAG updates and regional regulations also change the definition of “good enough”. A sensible approach is to treat accessibility like security and performance: something that is monitored, tested, and improved continuously.

Audits should combine automated checks with manual evaluation. Automated tools are excellent at detecting missing labels, insufficient contrast, and obvious structural problems, but they cannot reliably judge whether alt text is meaningful, whether instructions are understandable, or whether the interface is cognitively overwhelming. Manual testing catches focus traps, confusing tab order, broken skip links, and interaction patterns that look fine but behave poorly for assistive tools.

Audit habits that scale.

Run automated checks in development and before each major release.
Manually test keyboard navigation across critical journeys (signup, contact, checkout).
Maintain an accessibility changelog so fixes are not repeatedly reintroduced.

Operationally, teams benefit from defining an owner for accessibility standards, even if that owner rotates across product, design, and engineering. When accessibility is embedded into acceptance criteria, it becomes cheaper to maintain than to retrofit. For organisations shipping sites and content frequently, aligning audits with release cycles prevents issues from compounding into large and expensive remediations.

Apply ARIA only when needed.

ARIA attributes can bridge gaps when custom components do not map cleanly to native HTML controls. This is common with advanced UI patterns such as bespoke dropdowns, tab systems, accordions, and asynchronous search interfaces. ARIA can communicate roles, states, and relationships so assistive technology understands what is happening, such as whether a menu is expanded or which element controls which panel.

ARIA is also one of the easiest ways to harm accessibility when used incorrectly. A poor ARIA implementation can override native behaviour, announce the wrong information, or create a mismatch between what sighted users see and what non-visual users hear. The safest rule is: use native elements first, and reach for ARIA only when the design truly requires a custom pattern. When ARIA is used, it must be kept in sync with UI state. An attribute that says “expanded” while the menu is closed is worse than having no attribute at all.

ARIA usage guardrails.

Prefer native HTML controls because they come with built-in semantics and keyboard support.
Use ARIA to describe state and relationships for custom widgets that cannot be made native.
Test with real screen readers because correct code can still produce confusing output.

For teams adding enhancements via code injection on site builders, ARIA often appears in custom navigation and pop-ups. In those cases, focus management and state updates must be treated as first-class requirements, not optional polish.

Design for mobile and touch access.

Mobile accessibility is not only about responsive layouts. It is also about interaction reliability when thumbs replace cursors. Touch targets need adequate size and spacing to reduce accidental taps, which is a usability problem for everyone and an accessibility problem for users with limited dexterity. WCAG guidance commonly points to a minimum target size around 44 by 44 pixels for interactive elements, but the more important principle is that the interface should remain accurate under imperfect input.

Responsive design must preserve meaning as the layout changes. Collapsing navigation into a menu is fine, but the menu still needs keyboard access, screen-reader labels, and focus visibility. Text resizing is another typical failure: content that looks good at default settings can break when users increase font size or use system-level accessibility scaling. Testing should include landscape orientation, small screens, and scenarios where users zoom into content.

Mobile accessibility checks.

Ensure interactive elements are large enough and not packed too tightly.
Confirm menus, dialogs, and carousels work with keyboard and screen readers.
Test with text scaling and zoom to verify content does not become unusable.

Mobile performance intersects with accessibility because slow, shifting pages increase cognitive load and make navigation harder for assistive tools. Stable layouts, predictable spacing, and visible focus states are often the difference between “usable on mobile” and “technically responsive but frustrating”.

Test with people who use assistive tech.

Automated testing can indicate compliance; it cannot validate lived experience. The most reliable way to uncover real barriers is to involve people with disabilities throughout testing. Their feedback often highlights friction that internal teams do not anticipate, such as confusing link wording, inconsistent heading structure, or interaction patterns that require too much memory. Usability testing with diverse participants tends to surface issues that would otherwise persist for months because they do not appear in error logs.

User testing should reflect actual tasks: finding key information, completing a form, comparing product options, changing an account setting, and recovering from an error. It also helps to include different assistive setups. Two screen reader users can have radically different experiences depending on device, browser, and navigation style. Documenting these differences prevents teams from “fixing for one setup” while leaving other users behind.

Ways to make testing effective.

Recruit participants with varied disabilities and varied device usage.
Test real user journeys, not isolated components.
Track issues with clear reproduction steps and prioritise fixes by impact on task completion.

When organisations treat this as a regular practice rather than a one-off exercise, accessibility stops being theoretical. It becomes a measurable part of product quality, like conversion rate and retention.

Build an accessibility-first culture.

Accessibility improves fastest when it is not owned by a single specialist. It becomes durable when product, design, engineering, marketing, and operations share responsibility for inclusive outcomes. An inclusive culture treats accessibility requirements as part of definition-of-done, not an optional hardening step. This reduces last-minute conflict because teams plan for accessibility upfront rather than discovering gaps after design approval or content publishing.

Training should not be limited to developers. Content teams influence heading structure, link clarity, image descriptions, and reading level. Marketing teams influence landing page patterns, embedded media, and form flows. Operations teams influence documentation and customer support content. When each function understands the basics, accessibility becomes a multiplier instead of a bottleneck.

Cultural practices that stick.

Create lightweight standards for headings, links, images, and forms across the organisation.
Run short internal reviews of critical pages after big content pushes or redesigns.
Recognise accessibility improvements as product quality work, not cosmetic tweaks.

For small teams, a simple internal checklist plus recurring review time can achieve more than an ambitious policy that nobody has time to follow. Consistency is the goal, not perfection.

Use analytics and feedback to spot barriers.

Accessibility issues often appear as behavioural signals: abandonment spikes, repeated attempts, unusual time-on-task, and users bouncing from high-intent pages such as pricing or sign-up forms. Web analytics can help identify where friction is likely occurring, especially when paired with session recordings, error logging, and qualitative feedback. Data does not prove an accessibility problem on its own, but it narrows the search to the places where real users are struggling.

Teams can instrument events that align with accessibility-sensitive interactions: opening a menu, reaching an error state, using search, expanding an accordion, or completing a multi-step form. If a form has a high error rate on one field, the issue could be unclear instructions, poor input formatting, or a label that is not announced correctly by assistive tools. Pairing analytics with targeted user feedback questions can reveal the underlying cause quickly.

Analytics-driven accessibility improvements.

Track drop-off on key journeys and investigate pages with abnormal exit rates.
Monitor form error frequency and time-to-complete for conversion-critical flows.
Add a feedback option that allows users to report accessibility barriers in-context.

Over time, this creates a loop: identify friction via data, reproduce and validate with assistive tech, apply a fix, then verify improvement through measurable behaviour changes.

Understand assistive technologies in practice.

Accessibility design improves when teams understand how people actually navigate the web. Screen readers often traverse content linearly, jump by headings, and use landmark lists. Voice control relies on predictable labels and unique link text. Alternative input devices depend on sensible focus order and visible focus indicators. Assistive technologies are not edge-case tools; they are mainstream for many users and increasingly embedded into operating systems.

Testing with real tools helps teams discover patterns that “feel obvious” in hindsight: headings that skip levels make page outlines confusing, “click here” links become meaningless when read out of context, and visually hidden content can still be announced if it is not properly managed. It is also useful to test on multiple combinations, such as VoiceOver with Safari on iOS, NVDA with Firefox on Windows, and magnification plus keyboard navigation. Each combination reveals different failure modes.

Baseline assistive testing stack.

Test with screen readers such as JAWS, NVDA, or VoiceOver on at least two platforms.
Verify keyboard-only use across core flows, including modal dialogs and navigation menus.
Check compatibility with alternative inputs where feasible, including switch control patterns.

Once accessibility fundamentals are stable, teams can move into more advanced improvements such as reducing cognitive load, simplifying language, and making complex workflows more forgiving. That progression tends to produce a site that is not only compliant, but also faster to use, easier to trust, and more resilient as content and features scale.

Play section audio

Conclusion and next steps.

Why accessibility matters in web development.

In modern web projects, accessibility is not an optional enhancement or a niche feature. It is the discipline of designing and building digital experiences that people can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with, including people with permanent, temporary, or situational disabilities. That scope covers a wide range of real-world conditions: screen-reader users who cannot see the interface, keyboard-only users who cannot operate a mouse, users with low vision who need strong contrast and scalable text, and people with cognitive or neurological differences who benefit from predictable layouts and plain language.

Frameworks such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) formalise what “good” looks like by translating inclusive design into testable outcomes. Following those outcomes improves the baseline quality of a website. Clear structure, meaningful labelling, consistent interactions, and resilient front-end markup make a site easier to use for everyone, not only for users who rely on assistive technology. On the business side, it also reduces the risk of excluding a sizeable portion of potential customers. In Europe alone, around 101 million people have some form of disability, which represents a significant segment of the addressable market and a strong reason for leadership teams to treat accessibility as part of digital strategy rather than a cosmetic “nice to have”.

Accessibility also functions as a signal of organisational maturity. Teams that invest in inclusive patterns often build systems that are easier to maintain because they rely on standard HTML semantics and predictable component behaviour. That usually leads to fewer edge-case bugs, fewer support requests, and fewer conversion blockers, especially on mobile where small usability issues quickly become abandonment triggers. A simple example is form design: correctly associated labels, clear error messages, and keyboard-friendly inputs reduce failures for everybody, including hurried users on small screens or users completing checkout with one hand.

Ongoing education and awareness.

Accessibility standards are not static, and teams that treat them as a one-off checklist tend to regress over time as new pages, campaigns, and features ship. Keeping pace with requirements such as the European Accessibility Act (EAA) and updated WCAG guidance requires a continuous learning loop across design, content, and engineering. Training matters most when it is practical: what “focus order” means in a real navigation, how to write useful alt text for product imagery, and how to ensure a modal or cookie banner does not trap keyboard users.

Strong organisations operationalise learning rather than relying on individual interest. Workshops, internal demos, and short “lunch-and-learn” sessions can be tied directly to the team’s stack and workflow. Reference libraries such as Mozilla Developer Network and the W3C documentation are useful, but the biggest gains usually come from applying guidance to the specific components the business ships most often: forms, navigation, product grids, booking widgets, and embedded third-party tools.

Many teams benefit from appointing an accessibility champion, not as a gatekeeper, but as a facilitator who helps others make correct decisions earlier. That person can keep lightweight standards up to date, maintain a small set of approved UI patterns, and promote the habit of testing with a keyboard and a screen reader before calling a feature “done”. In cross-functional environments, champions also help marketing, content, and product teams understand that accessibility is not only “code work”. Copy, headings, link text, media, and layout decisions can either remove friction or introduce it.

Accessible design benefits everyone.

Accessible design is often described as “designing for disabilities”, but in practice it is better understood as designing for variability. semantic HTML, for example, improves how assistive technologies interpret content, but it also improves maintainability, supports better SEO, and helps browsers render pages more reliably across devices. A page with meaningful headings, lists, and landmarks is faster to scan, easier to translate into other contexts, and more resilient when stylesheets fail or when content is repurposed in email, search previews, or AI summaries.

The same pattern holds across many requirements. Captions benefit deaf users, but they also help someone watching a video in a noisy environment or in a quiet office. Strong colour contrast supports low-vision users, but it also improves readability outdoors on mobile. Keyboard navigation helps people with motor impairments, but it also helps power users who prefer to move quickly without a mouse. When teams implement accessibility well, they commonly see secondary improvements: lower bounce rates, better on-page engagement, fewer “rage clicks”, and smoother conversion paths.

Accessible sites can also reduce legal and operational risk. Proactively addressing common failures (such as missing form labels, inaccessible menus, or non-descriptive link text) decreases the likelihood of complaints and reduces last-minute remediation costs. From an operations perspective, every friction point removed from key journeys, account creation, booking, checkout, support, directly reduces the number of “help me” messages that land in inboxes and forms. For businesses scaling content and workflows across platforms like Squarespace and Knack, that compounding reduction in friction is often a meaningful advantage.

Practical steps to improve accessibility.

Accessibility improves fastest when teams combine quick technical checks with real user feedback and then bake the results into a repeatable workflow. The list below outlines a practical, low-drama approach that suits founders, SMB teams, and mixed-technical groups who need progress without slowing delivery.

Run an accessibility audit using tools like WAVE or Axe to spot common issues such as missing alternative text, low contrast, broken heading structure, and form labelling problems.
Validate keyboard usability end to end: ensure menus, modals, popups, sliders, and dropdowns can be reached and operated without a mouse, and that focus states are visible at all times.
Write descriptive image alt text that explains purpose, not decoration. Decorative images should be treated as such, while functional images (for example, icons that act as buttons) should have meaningful text equivalents.
Provide captions and transcripts for video and audio. Captions help with comprehension and accessibility, while transcripts also create searchable text that can support content discovery.
Keep heading hierarchy logical (H2 to H3 to H4) so the page outline matches the meaning of the content. Headings should label sections, not style text.
Use clear link text that describes the destination or action. “Click here” forces extra work for screen-reader users scanning a link list and reduces clarity for everyone.
Review colour contrast and text sizing across breakpoints. Check real devices where possible, because contrast issues often show up more strongly on mobile in bright environments.
Test dynamic components and client-side interactions. If content expands, filters, or updates without a full page load, ensure assistive technologies receive the right cues and that focus does not jump unpredictably.
Apply ARIA roles and properties only when needed, and only in ways that match native behaviour. Where a native HTML element exists, it is usually safer and more accessible than recreating behaviour with scripts.
Build a lightweight accessibility checklist into “definition of done” so every release checks the basics: headings, labels, focus, contrast, and media alternatives.
Test with real users who rely on assistive technologies when possible. Automated tools catch patterns, but they cannot fully evaluate whether an experience is understandable, predictable, and efficient.
Add an accessibility feedback pathway on the site so visitors can report issues without friction. That channel becomes an early warning system for problems introduced by new content, templates, or third-party embeds.

Commit to inclusive digital experiences.

Inclusive digital experiences do not happen by accident. They are the outcome of treating accessibility as part of product quality, the same way performance, security, and usability are treated. When organisations embed accessibility into planning, design reviews, and development practices, they spend less time patching problems later and more time improving the experience in ways that help everyone. This approach also encourages better cross-team alignment, because content, UX, and engineering are forced to agree on clearer structure, clearer language, and clearer interaction patterns.

Accessibility work is also a long-term practice. As platforms, browsers, and customer expectations evolve, new constraints appear and old assumptions break. A sustainable strategy is to keep accessibility close to everyday delivery: audit key journeys regularly, update shared components, and treat regressions as bugs. Over time, that rhythm builds a digital environment that feels calmer, faster, and more trustworthy, particularly for users who do not have time to fight a confusing interface.

From here, the most sensible next step is to move from principles to proof. A team can select one high-impact journey, such as contact, checkout, account creation, or booking, and run a focused review that combines automated scanning, keyboard testing, and a short round of real-user feedback. Once that single journey improves, the same patterns can be applied across templates and components, turning accessibility into a repeatable capability rather than a periodic project.

Frequently Asked Questions.

What is web accessibility?

Web accessibility refers to the practice of designing websites that can be used by all individuals, including those with disabilities. It ensures that all users can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with web content effectively.

Why is accessibility important?

Accessibility is important because it allows individuals with disabilities to access information and services online, promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities. It also helps businesses comply with legal standards and enhances user experience for all visitors.

What are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)?

The WCAG are a set of guidelines developed to ensure that web content is accessible to people with disabilities. They provide a framework for making digital content more inclusive and usable for everyone.

How can I test my website for accessibility?

You can test your website for accessibility by using automated tools like WAVE or Axe, conducting keyboard-only navigation tests, and involving users with disabilities in the testing process to gather feedback on usability.

What are common accessibility failures?

Common accessibility failures include missing labels on form inputs, poor contrast ratios, interactive elements that are not keyboard accessible, and vague error messages that do not provide clear guidance.

How can I improve my website's accessibility?

To improve your website's accessibility, implement semantic HTML, ensure all images have descriptive alt text, maintain a logical heading structure, and regularly test your site with real users to identify areas for improvement.

What role does semantic HTML play in accessibility?

Semantic HTML helps convey meaning about the content contained within a webpage, making it easier for assistive technologies to interpret and present information to users with disabilities.

How often should I audit my website for accessibility?

Regular audits should be conducted as part of your development cycle, especially after significant updates or changes to ensure ongoing compliance with accessibility standards.

What is the importance of user feedback in accessibility testing?

User feedback is crucial as it provides insights into real-world usability issues that automated tools may not catch, helping developers create more user-centred and accessible designs.

How can I foster an inclusive culture in my organisation?

Fostering an inclusive culture can be achieved by providing regular training on accessibility standards, encouraging open discussions about accessibility challenges, and recognising efforts to improve accessibility within the organisation.

References

Thank you for taking the time to read this lecture. Hopefully, this has provided you with insight to assist your career or business.

Scanbot. (2024, October 3). European Accessibility Act: Ensuring mobile app compliance. Scanbot. https://scanbot.io/blog/european-accessibility-act-2025/
Mozilla Developer Network. (2025, December 5). What is accessibility? Learn web development. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Core/Accessibility/What_is_accessibility
Auerbach, D. (2025, July 30). Top 11 accessibility testing tools [2025]: Compare features, pros and cons. Medium. https://medium.com/@david-auerbach/top-11-accessibility-testing-tools-2025-compare-features-pros-and-cons-0f1fa11ed76a
Wilsn, A. A. (2024, December 18). Mastering HTML: The Basics, Semantic HTML, Forms and Validation, Accessibility, and SEO Basics. DEV Community. https://dev.to/abdielwilsn/mastering-html-the-basics-semantic-html-forms-and-validation-accessibility-and-seo-basics-4idc
DEV Community. (2025, February 2). Accessibility in frontend development: Building inclusive web experiences. DEV Community. https://dev.to/drprime01/accessibility-in-frontend-development-building-inclusive-web-experiences-ek1
W3C. (2025, May 1). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. W3C. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
GOV.UK. (n.d.). Doing a basic accessibility check if you cannot do a detailed one. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/doing-a-basic-accessibility-check-if-you-cant-do-a-detailed-one/doing-a-basic-accessibility-check-if-you-cant-do-a-detailed-one
Tiny. (2023, November 16). 6 web accessibility challenges for businesses. Tiny. https://www.tiny.cloud/blog/website-accessibility-for-businesses/
WebAbility.io. (n.d.). 12 best accessibility tools for websites in 2025. WebAbility.io. https://www.webability.io/blog/accessibility-tools-for-websites

Key components mentioned

This lecture referenced a range of named technologies, systems, standards bodies, and platforms that collectively map how modern web experiences are built, delivered, measured, and governed. The list below is included as a transparency index of the specific items mentioned.

ProjektID solutions and learning: