How to inspect accessibility evidence, understand barriers, and build websites that work better for more people.
Web accessibility is the practice of making websites and applications usable for people who cannot rely on the default visual, mouse-driven version of an interface. That includes people using screen readers, keyboards, voice control, zoom, high contrast settings, captions, and other assistive technologies or adaptive strategies.
Accessibility is often discussed as a checklist, a legal requirement, or a score. Those things can matter, but they are not the heart of the work. The heart of accessibility is whether people can understand, navigate, and use what you built.
For blind and visually impaired users, that often means expressing visual structure in non-visual ways. Headings need to describe the page. Controls need names. Focus needs to move in a predictable order. Images need useful text alternatives when they carry meaning. Dynamic interfaces need to explain what changed.
This section is where I want to write about accessibility as a practical discipline. Some articles will focus on screen reader usage and testing. Some will dig into ARIA, headings, structure, and interaction patterns. Some will connect accessibility to content engineering, search, and generative AI. All of them are rooted in the same idea: better structure helps people understand and use the web.
These articles explore accessibility as evidence, practice, structure, and user experience: from screen reader survey data to ARIA, machine readability, and the real work of making interfaces more understandable.
Accessibility is still first and foremost about people. But the same practices that make websites more usable for blind and visually impaired users can also help search engines and generative AI systems understand structure, controls, meaning, and context. This article looks at accessibility as a practical way to express non-visual meaning on the web.
ARIA helps browsers and assistive technology communicate the role, state, name, and relationships of interface elements, but it does not automatically make custom controls accessible. This article explains why native HTML should come first, how roles and attributes work, why accessible names matter, and why keyboard behaviour and screen reader testing are part of the contract.
A practical accessibility article built around useful findings from the WebAIM Screen Reader User Survey 2024, including JavaScript usage, Windows and Chrome usage, JAWS and NVDA adoption, mobile behaviour, navigation patterns, and why accessible websites matter more than waiting for assistive technology to solve everything.
Accessibility has become one of the most important parts of how I build and test software. Automated checks help, but they only tell part of the story. Real accessibility work also requires keyboard testing, screen reader testing, content review, component review, and a willingness to notice when a technically valid interface still feels awful to use.
Siteimp now exposes far more accessibility evidence than a single score. It can report individual Lighthouse accessibility checks, explain what each check means, suggest likely scope, and help point review toward page content, shared components, templates, or theme-level issues.
That matters because accessibility problems are rarely isolated to one page. A broken button component can create the same barrier everywhere it appears. Weak heading structure can make an entire resource section harder to navigate. Poor contrast tokens can spread through a whole design system like somebody spilled soup in the SCSS drawer.
This hub is my attempt to write about that work clearly: not as a vague moral slogan, not as compliance theater, and not as a single automated score. Accessibility is practical, technical, human work. The better we understand the evidence, the easier it becomes to improve the experience for real users.