How-to Archives /Tag

Accessibility Statement: The Good, Bad, and Ugly
An accessibility statement is one of those pages most teams don’t think about until something forces the issue. A user hits a blocker and asks for help. A procurement review wants proof of process. Or someone internally asks the question no one loves answering: “What can we honestly say about accessibility right now?”

If you already work with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), you know the hard part isn’t writing a few well-meaning lines. It’s making sure the statement matches the lived experience of your site. It needs to be specific enough to help someone plan their next step, careful enough to hold up under scrutiny, and practical enough that it won’t be outdated after the next release.

We’ll walk through the common versions you’ll see online, what they communicate at a glance, and what to include if you want a statement that stays accurate as your site and your workflows keep evolving.

Accessibility Statement Best Practices

WCAG does not require an accessibility statement. That surprises a lot of teams. But “not required” and “not important” are two different things.

A statement helps people understand what to expect and how to get support. It also helps internal teams because it forces clarity. If it feels hard to explain your testing process or your goals, that usually points to a bigger issue. The work may be happening in pieces, but the process is not fully owned yet.

In some cases, publishing a statement is not optional. The Revised Section 508 Standards in the United States apply to many public institutions and require accessibility statements that follow a specific format. And even when an organization is not under Section 508, laws and regulations like the ADA, AODA, or EAA raise the stakes around access and transparency.

There is also a practical reality. When a complaint or demand letter happens, this page gets read. Often early. It shows what you claimed, what you promised, and whether your wording matches the experience. So it is not only communication. It can become evidence.

Missing Accessibility Statement: User and Risk Impact

No page. No link. No mention in the footer or on the contact page.

When a site has no accessibility statement, users are left guessing. If they hit a barrier, they also have no clear way to report it. Many people will not spend extra time searching for a hidden email address. They will leave.

A missing statement usually points to one of three situations:
- Accessibility has not been considered yet.
- It has been considered, but it keeps getting pushed down the list.
- Work is happening, but nobody has taken ownership of communicating it.
None of that helps someone trying to apply for a job, schedule an appointment, pay a bill, or place an order.

It can also create risk. It can look like there is no accessibility process at all. Again, that is not proof by itself. But it is not a good signal.

Boilerplate Accessibility Statement: Copy, Paste, Risk

Boilerplate is easy to spot. It often says “we are committed to accessibility” and references WCAG, but nothing else. No date. No testing details. No contact method that feels monitored. Sometimes it even claims full compliance.

This version is risky for a simple reason. It makes a promise without support.

If the site still has keyboard traps, broken form labels, missing focus states, or confusing headings, users will notice the mismatch right away. The page that was meant to build confidence does the opposite.

Boilerplate also tends to sound the same across many sites. That sameness can read as performative. People have seen it before, and many have learned it does not mean much in practice.

If your statement came from a template, treat it as a draft. It should be reviewed with the same care you would give a checkout flow, an account login, or a support page.

Aspirational Accessibility Statement: Nice Words, Few Details

This one is tricky because it can come from a good place.

Aspirational statements often sound warm and well-intentioned. They talk about inclusion, values, and long-term goals. Some mention employee groups, empathy workshops, or automated tools. The problem isn’t the heart behind it. It’s that none of this helps a user complete a task today.

Where these statements tend to fall short is in clarity. They describe the why but skip the what now. Users trying to pay a bill or submit a form need concrete information, not broad promises about the future. When a statement avoids specifics about testing, current site limitations, or how to get help, it becomes more of a brand message than a resource.

This is also where teams can unintentionally stall. Publishing a warm, values-driven accessibility statement can create the illusion that the work is “handled,” even when the practical steps are still ahead.

How to Write a Good Accessibility Statement

A strong accessibility statement is simple in a practical way. It does not try to sound impressive. It explains what you are doing, what you know, and how users can reach you if they run into a problem.

You can think of it as having a few main ingredients. The exact recipe will vary by organization, but these parts show up again and again in statements that users actually trust.

Purpose and Commitment

Start with a clear handshake. Say you are dedicated to making your website or content accessible, including for people who use assistive technology. Keep it short and human. It should feel like support, not legal language.

Standards and Guidelines (WCAG)

Mention the standard you are aiming for, such as WCAG 2.2 Level AA. If that is your target, say it. If you are still working toward it, you can say that too. Honesty here builds more trust than a bold claim.

Testing Approach and Review Dates

This is where you move from “we care” to “we have a process.”

Include:
- The date of your last accessibility evaluation
- Whether you used automated checks, manual testing, or both
- How often you plan to review the site again
You can also name what you focus on at a high level, like key user flows, forms, templates, and shared components. Users do not need a lab report. They do need to know that testing is not a rumor.

Areas of Success

This part is often missing, but it helps. Call out what is working well today. It tells users where the experience is likely to be smoother, and it shows that accessibility work is not only future tense.

Examples might include:
- Core navigation and main templates reviewed for keyboard and screen reader use
- Improved form labels and clearer error handling in key workflows
- Updates to contrast and focus styling on shared components
Keep this realistic. Don’t oversell. Just help users understand where the site is in better shape.

Areas Needing Improvement

Nobody’s site is perfect, and users already know that. The question is whether you are willing to be honest about it.

List the known problem areas that affect tasks. For example:
- Older pages that still have heading or label issues
- Some PDFs or documents that are not fully accessible yet
- Third-party tools that have accessibility limits, you are working to address
If you can add timelines or priority windows, do it. Avoid vague “we’re working on it” language. A specific window builds confidence because it shows this is planned work, not wishful thinking.

Assistive Technology and Environments Tested

Mention the kinds of environments you consider, such as desktop and mobile, keyboard-only use, and screen readers. A short list helps users understand whether your testing reflects their reality.

Contact Information and Support Process

Provide an easy way to reach out if someone runs into a barrier. Email is a baseline. Some teams also offer a phone number or an accessible form.

Just as important, include a brief note about what happens after someone reaches out. Even one sentence helps. For example, reports are reviewed and routed to the right team.

Where to Place the Accessibility Statement Link

Make sure the statement is easy to find. Put it in the footer, and consider linking it from the contact page as well. If users need a search engine to find it, you are adding friction at the exact moment they need support.

Common Accessibility Statement Mistakes

Even a well-meaning statement can miss the mark. These are the mistakes that show up the most.

Overly Legal or Technical Language

An accessibility statement is not a compliance brief. Write for people. Define acronyms. Use short paragraphs and lists. Make it scannable.

Claims You Can’t Support

Avoid saying “fully compliant” unless you can back it up and keep it true over time. Websites change constantly. A claim that was accurate once can become inaccurate fast.

A safer approach is to describe your goal, your testing, and your process.

No Clear Feedback Path

If there is no clear way to report barriers, the statement fails one of its most important jobs. And if you list an email address, make sure it is monitored.

Burying the Accessibility Statement

Put it somewhere consistent, like a global footer. Users should not have to hunt.

Make Your Accessibility Statement Match Reality

An accessibility statement only does its job if it stays close to reality. As your site changes, the statement should keep pace, reflecting what has been tested, what still needs attention, and how people can reach you when something doesn’t work as expected. If reading your current statement feels uncomfortable or outdated, that’s not a dead end. It’s a useful signal that your process needs clearer ownership, stronger testing language, or a better plan for keeping the page current.

At 216digital, our team is committed to helping you take the steps towards web accessibility on your terms by developing a strategy to integrate WCAG 2.2 compliance into your development roadmap. We offer comprehensive services that not only audit your website for accessibility but also provide solutions to meet ADA compliance requirements.

To learn what more you should do to achieve and maintain accessibility for your team, schedule a Complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing with the experts at 216digital.
Greg McNeil

February 13, 2026

How-to Guides, Legal Compliance, Web Accessibility Training

accessibility statement, Accessibility Statment, How-to, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
Why ARIA Links Break More Often Than You Think
Links are supposed to be the easy part. You write a few words, wrap them in an , and move on.

But ARIA links have a way of turning “easy” into “why is this broken in Safari” surprisingly fast. Not because ARIA is bad, and not because links are fragile. It usually happens when we start doing clever things to link text. We hide it. We replace it. We split it into tiny pieces for styling. Then we assume every tool people use will still understand the link the same way.

That assumption is where the trouble starts.

The focus here is understanding why ARIA links break across browsers, what the testing uncovered, and how small markup choices can ripple out into very real barriers for users.

How ARIA Links Get Their Accessible Name

A link needs a name. That name is what tools use to announce it, list it, or make it usable.

In the best case, the name is just the visible text inside the link. Simple, reliable, and supported everywhere.

When we start building ARIA links, we often change that name in one of two ways. We override it with aria-label, or we hide the visible text (often with aria-hidden) and hope ARIA will fill the gap.

Here’s the catch. Screen readers look at the accessibility tree, where ARIA is meant to live. But many browser-native features do not behave like screen readers. Some look at rendered text instead. Some use a simplified “reading view” model. Some apply their own rules to decide what counts as readable content.

So an ARIA label can be “correct” in the accessibility tree, yet still get ignored by other tools that your users rely on.

ARIA Link Patterns That Break Across Browsers

In the original write-up, the author tried a bunch of versions of the same link, including multilingual cases. Three patterns kept causing breakage.

ARIA Links and aria-label on Visible Text

This is a common move. It can happen on purpose, like when someone wants a “cleaner” name, or by accident, like when a component always injects an aria-label.

In the tests, browser speech tools did not treat that aria-label as the link’s name. Edge Read Aloud did not announce the aria-label value for any link. Chrome reader mode text-to-speech did not announce the aria-label value for any link. Safari’s Speech feature did not announce the aria-label value for any link.

So you end up with ARIA links that may sound fine in a screen reader, but feel unlabeled in browser read-aloud tools. That’s a big deal because a lot of people use read-aloud features without ever touching a screen reader.

There’s another issue too. In the tests, the aria-label values were intentionally different from the visible label so it was easy to spot. That mismatch causes a known WCAG barrier (SC 2.5.3 Label in Name), but the practical problem is even simpler. Users hear one thing and see another. That erodes trust fast.

ARIA Links and aria-hidden Inside Links

This one looks harmless until it isn’t.

aria-hidden="true" removes content from the accessibility tree. If the text inside your link is hidden, then for many tools, the label is effectively gone.

In the tests, Chrome Reader Mode visually hid every link with aria-hidden. Firefox Reader Mode visually hid every link with aria-hidden. Edge Read Aloud did not announce links with aria-hidden, regardless of other attributes. Chrome reader mode text-to-speech did not announce links with aria-hidden, regardless of other attributes.

So now your ARIA links can disappear from reader views, or get skipped by speech features, even though they still look clickable on the standard page.

There was also a more subtle interaction issue. When the tester highlighted aria-hidden links, Chrome and Edge wouldn’t let them link to the highlighted text, though that behavior shifted once more content was added. Either way, it’s a reminder that hiding text changes more than announcements. It changes how pages behave.

ARIA Links With Split Text Spans

This is the “design made me do it” pattern. It’s often used for animations, hover effects, or custom typography.

The tests showed it can create a surprising amount of fallout. Text split into letter spans did not auto-translate. Firefox Reader Mode styled span-split links as white instead of blue or purple. Safari Speech jumped past most of the page when it hit span-split text. After that jump, Safari announced subsequent links with the wrong link text, including pulling Korean text for English links. Safari Speech did not announce the span-separated letters and also did not announce the visible word those letters formed.

So you can end up with a link that looks fine, but breaks translation, looks unclickable in reader view, and causes speech tools to lose their place.

That last part is especially rough. When a speech feature starts skipping content or mislabeling later links, the whole page becomes harder to trust. Users can’t just “work around” that.

Cross-Browser Results for ARIA Links

One of the best takeaways from the cross-browser checks is this: these are not edge-case bugs in one browser. Each browser failed in its own way.

Chrome and Edge
- Reader mode and text-to-speech ignored aria-label on links.
- Reader mode hid links when aria-hidden was involved.
- Some selection and “link to highlight” behavior broke around aria-hidden content.
Firefox
- Reader view hid aria-hidden links.
- Span-split links lost normal link styling and showed up as white text.
Safari
- Speech skipped content after span-split links.
- It then announced later links with the wrong label, sometimes in the wrong language.
- It ignored aria-label values for link naming.
If your testing only includes one browser and one screen reader, it’s easy to miss all of this. The links will “work” in the sense that you can click them. But they won’t work the same way for people who browse differently.

Why ARIA Links Break in Reader Mode and Speech

ARIA labels live in the accessibility tree. Many browser reading tools do not rely on that tree the way screen readers do. Instead, they often prioritize what they can extract from rendered text or from a simplified reading model.

On top of that, aria-hidden removes content from the tree, and some tools treat that as “remove from reading,” not merely “ignore for screen readers.” When the visible label is hidden, those tools are left with less content to work with, and the link can become empty or disappear.

Per-letter spans create a different kind of problem. They turn a word into fragments, and many tools don’t rebuild those fragments into a single word reliably. Translation and reading modes are especially sensitive here because they’re trying to extract coherent content, not just replay the DOM.

So the link is still a link, but its label becomes unstable. It might be visible but not readable to speech. It might be readable in one mode but missing in another. It might translate in one browser but not another.

That inconsistency is the barrier.

What Broken ARIA Links Feel Like for Users

When ARIA links fail this way, users don’t experience it as “ARIA isn’t supported.” They experience it as missing information, broken reading flow, or a page that feels unreliable.

Reader Mode can show a page that looks mostly right, but key links are missing. Read-aloud can skip links or move through them without saying their names. Translation can work for paragraphs while navigation or call-to-action links remain untranslated. Links can lose their visual cues in reading view and look like plain text, which makes people hesitate to click.

Speech tools can be the most disruptive. When they jump around, skip content, or start announcing the wrong link text, users lose confidence in the whole page. Even basic tasks like highlighting and sharing text can become awkward when the words inside the link aren’t treated as real text.

None of this requires a screen reader. These are everyday tools. Plenty of users lean on them for fatigue, focus, dyslexia support, language support, low vision support, or just convenience.

Safer Patterns for ARIA Links

You don’t have to give up design. You just need to be careful about what you do to the actual link label.

Keep a real text label in the link. If your link has visible text, keep it as real text inside the <a>. That’s the most stable way to get a consistent accessible name across tools.

Use aria-label only when there is no visible text. Icon-only links are the right case for this. If text exists, it should usually carry the name.

Avoid aria-hidden on link labels. If an icon is decorative, hide the icon. Do not hide the words people need.

Avoid splitting words into separate spans. If you want animation, animate the container, an underline, a background, or a pseudo-element. Keep the word intact.

If you inherit a design system that already does this, treat it like a compatibility issue and add guardrails. Make sure there’s still a readable text node somewhere that tools can use. Keep the visible label aligned with the computed name. Test in Reader Mode and speech features, not only in screen readers.

Quick Tests for ARIA Links

A few fast checks can reveal the same problems that showed up in the browser experiments. These don’t take long, but they make it clear whether your link text holds up beyond a screen reader.
- Open Chrome Reader Mode and confirm the links still appear, still look like links, and keep the right text.
- Use Edge Read Aloud and listen for link names. Watch for links that go silent.
- Try Firefox Reader View and make sure the links keep normal styling instead of turning into plain text.
- Use Safari Speech and watch for skipped sections or incorrect labels on later links.
- Translate the page and see whether link text is translated as a full word instead of letter fragments.
- Highlight link text and check that selection behaves normally across the whole label.
- Inspect the accessibility tree to confirm the computed name matches what’s visible.
- Finish with a screen reader pass as a second layer instead of the only one.
If a link pattern fails any of these, it’s a sign your ARIA links are doing too much.

Sanity-Check Your ARIA Links

If your links have been “mostly fine” in screen reader checks but still feel weird in Reader Mode or read-aloud, you’re not alone. That’s exactly why these patterns are sneaky. They don’t break the click. They break the label, the reading flow, and the trust people build as they move through a page.

The upside is you don’t need a big rebuild to clean this up. Start with one or two link components that get used everywhere. Keep the visible text intact. Be careful with aria-label when text is already on screen. Don’t hide the label with aria-hidden. Avoid splitting words into lots of spans. Then run the quick checks again. When it’s fixed, you’ll hear it right away.

At 216digital, we help teams pressure-test link patterns in the same places users feel these failures. Reader modes, speech tools, translation, selection, and yes, screen readers too. If your components rely on ARIA links or stylized link labels, schedule an ADA Strategy Briefing. We’ll help you tighten the markup so links stay predictable across the tools and browsers your users actually use.
Greg McNeil

February 12, 2026

How-to Guides, Web Design & Development

ARIA, ARIA links, aria-describedby, aria-label, How-to, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
How to Use VoiceOver to Evaluate Web Accessibility
Most page reviews start the same way. You scan the layout, tab through a few controls, and make sure nothing obvious is broken. That catches a lot. It just doesn’t tell you what the page sounds like when a screen reader is in charge. Turn on VoiceOver, and the same interface can expose gaps you would never notice visually. A button has no name. The heading structure is thinner than it looks. A menu opens, but nothing announces that anything changed.

On macOS, Apple’s built-in screen reader gives you a direct way to hear what your site is exposing to assistive technology. We’ll cover a practical setup, the few commands that matter most, and a repeatable testing flow you can use on any page.

Why VoiceOver Testing Catches Issues Automated Tools Miss

VoiceOver is a screen reader that ships with Mac devices. When it is turned on, it announces what is on the screen, the role of each element, and its state. It also replaces mouse-first navigation with keyboard navigation so people can move through pages without relying on sight.

Testing with this tool shows how your site appears to the macOS accessibility layer in Safari. You hear whether headings form a usable outline. You find out whether regions are exposed as landmarks. You also learn whether labels give enough context when they are spoken on their own, which is a big deal for links, buttons, and form fields.

Small issues stand out more when they are spoken about. A “Learn more” link might seem harmless when it sits next to a product title. But in a list of links, it turns into five identical options with no meaning. An icon-only button might look clear on screen, but it can be announced as “button” with no name. A form field might look labeled, but if that label is not programmatically connected, the field can be read as “edit text” and nothing else.

VoiceOver is not the only screen reader that matters. NVDA and JAWS on Windows and mobile tools on phones and tablets each have their own patterns. This approach treats macOS testing as one important view into accessibility, not a substitute for broader coverage.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements still apply the same way. On desktop, the impact of focus order, labeling, and structure becomes more obvious when you stop scanning visually and start moving through a page one item at a time.

Set Up VoiceOver in Safari for Reliable Accessibility Testing

A stable setup makes your testing more dependable over time. You do not need anything complex. A Mac, Safari, and a space where you can hear speech clearly are enough. Headphones help if your office or home is noisy.

Before you run your first pass, set up the few things that will affect your results:
- Turn VoiceOver on with Command + F5
  - On some laptops, you may need fn + Command + F5
- Choose your VO modifier key.
  - Control + Option together, or Caps Lock
- In Safari preferences, go to the Advanced tab and enable “Press Tab to highlight each item on a webpage.”
That Safari setting is easy to miss, but it matters. Without it, you can tab and still skip controls you need to test.

Next, spend a minute in the screen reader settings. Adjust the speech rate to something you can follow without strain. If it is too fast, you will miss details during longer sessions. If it is too slow, you will start rushing and skipping steps. Set the voice and language so they match the primary language of the site.

Different macOS versions and device setups can change where settings live or how certain items are announced. You do not need the “perfect” configuration. What helps most is using one setup consistently, so results are comparable from sprint to sprint.

Turn VoiceOver On and Off Fast During Development

You can enable the screen reader through System Settings under Accessibility, but for regular work, it is worth using the keyboard toggle. Most teams rely on Command + F5 so they can switch quickly.

That quick toggle matters in real development cycles. You might review a component visually, turn VoiceOver on, test it, turn it off, adjust code, and repeat. If enabling and disabling feel slow, the step stops happening.

There is a learning curve. When the screen reader is active, you will use the VO key with other keys for many commands. You also want to know how to pause speech quickly. Pressing Control to stop reading is one of those small skills that make testing feel manageable instead of chaotic.

If you ever want a safe practice mode, turn on Keyboard Help with VO + K. VoiceOver will tell you what keys do without typing or triggering actions. Press VO + K again to exit.

VoiceOver Commands for Web Testing You’ll Use Most

You do not need every Mac keyboard shortcut to run useful tests. A small set covers most web content and keeps the process repeatable across a team.

For reading:
- Read from the top: VO + A
- Stop reading: Control
- Move to next item: VO + right arrow
- Move to previous item: VO + left arrow
For interactive elements:
- Move focus forward: Tab
- Move focus backward: Shift + Tab
- Activate an item: Return or VO + Space
Start with simple, linear navigation. Read from the top and move through items one by one. Ask yourself whether the reading order matches what you see on screen. Listen for controls that do not make sense when heard out of context, like “button” with no name or multiple links with the same vague label.

This pace will feel slower than visual scanning. That is part of the value. The slowness makes gaps in structure, naming, and focus behavior hard to ignore.

Use the VoiceOver Rotor to Check Headings, Links, and Landmarks

Once you can move through a page linearly, the Rotor helps you evaluate structure much faster.

Open the Rotor with VO + U. Use the left and right arrow keys to switch between categories and the up and down arrow keys to move through the items in that category. Common Rotor lists include headings, links, landmarks, form controls, tables, and images.

This is where structural problems become obvious. If the page outline is weak, the Rotor will tell you fast.

Start with headings. Move through the hierarchy and listen for a clear outline. Missing levels, unclear section names, or long stretches with no headings usually mean the structure is not supporting nonvisual navigation.

Next, move to landmarks. This reveals whether regions like header, navigation, main, and footer are present and used in a way that matches the layout. Too few landmarks can make the page feel flat. Too many can create noise.

Then scan links and controls. Duplicate or vague link text stands out when you hear it as a list. Controls with incomplete labeling stand out too. An icon button that looks fine can become “button” repeated several times.

You can also filter Rotor lists by typing. If you are in the headings Rotor and type “nav,” you can jump to headings that contain those characters. Small features like this make VoiceOver testing feel less like wandering and more like a targeted review.

A Repeatable VoiceOver Workflow for Web Accessibility QA

You do not need to run a full audit on every page. A light, repeatable workflow is easier to sustain and still catches a large share of issues.

When you review a new page or a major change:
1. Turn on the screen reader and let it read the beginning of the page.
2. Move through the page in order and note anything confusing or missing.
3. Use the Rotor to review headings, landmarks, links, and form controls.
4. Complete one core task using only the keyboard.
Start by listening to how the page begins. Do you hear a clear main heading early? Does navigation appear when it should? Is anything being read that is not visible or not meant to be part of the flow?

Then move through the content one item at a time. Note skipped content, unexpected jumps, or labels that do not match what you see.

Next, do your structural passes with the Rotor. Headings give you a quick sense of hierarchy. Landmarks show whether regions are exposed and used correctly. Links and form controls expose labeling patterns and repetition.

Finally, test a key journey. Pick a task that matters and complete it with no mouse. That might be searching, opening navigation, filling out a form, or moving through a checkout step. If focus jumps, if a dialog opens without being announced, or if you cannot reach a control, it is not a minor problem. It is a broken path for many users.

Along the way, watch for patterns. Maybe icon buttons from one component set often lack names. Maybe form errors rarely announce. Patterns are the difference between fixing one page and improving the whole system.

High-Impact VoiceOver Checks for Forms, Menus, and Modals

Some parts of a site deserve more focused time because they carry more weight for users and for the business.

Forms and inputs

Fields should have clear labels, including required fields and fields with special formats. Error messages need to be announced at the right time, and focus should move to a helpful place when validation fails. If the error appears visually but VoiceOver does not announce it, users may never know what went wrong.

Navigation menus and drawers

Menus should announce when they open or close. Focus should shift into them when they appear and return to a sensible point when dismissed. A menu that opens visually but stays silent is a common failure.

Modals and other overlays

Modals should trap focus while active and hand focus back cleanly when they close. Users should not be able to tab into page content behind the modal. The modal should also have a clear label so it is announced as a meaningful dialog, not just “group.”

Status updates and confirmation messages

Loading indicators, success messages, and alerts should be announced without forcing users to hunt for them. If an action completes and nothing is announced, users are left guessing.

Tables and structured data

If you use data tables, confirm that headers are associated properly so VoiceOver can announce row and column context as you move. Tables with merged headers or empty corner cells can cause confusing output, so they are worth extra attention.

These areas tend to reveal focus and naming issues quickly, especially when the UI is built from custom components.

VoiceOver Bug Notes That Lead to Faster Fixes

Bringing screen reader testing into your workflow is one of those small shifts that pays off quickly. It helps you catch problems earlier, tighten how your components behave, and ship experiences that hold up under real use.

To keep it sustainable, capture findings in a way that leads to fixes instead of debate:
- Record the page and the component or flow.
- List the steps you took
- Note what you expected to hear.
- Note what you actually heard.
- Explain the impact of completing a task.
- Suggest a direction, such as a missing label, an incorrect role, or a focus not managed.
Short, consistent notes are usually enough. Over time, your team will build a shared understanding of what “sounds right” and what needs cleanup.

Make VoiceOver Checks Part of Your Release Routine

VoiceOver testing can feel slow at first, and that is normal. You are training your ear to notice things your eyes will always gloss over. Keep the scope small, stay consistent, and let the habit build. A quick pass on one key flow each release is enough to change how teams design, label, and manage focus over time. And when you hit a pattern that keeps coming back, that is usually a sign the fix belongs in your shared components, not in one-off patches.

If you want help making this a repeatable part of how you ship, 216digital can support you. We work with teams to weave WCAG 2.1 into their development roadmap in a way that fits their product, pace, and constraints. Schedule a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing, and we’ll talk through what you’re building, where VoiceOver testing should live, and the next changes that will have the most impact.
Kayla Laganiere

February 11, 2026

How-to Guides

Accessibility, assistive technology, How-to, screen readers, VoiceOver, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
How to Build Accessible Form Validation and Errors
A form can succeed or fail based on how predictable its validation and recovery patterns are. When users can’t understand what the form expects or how to correct an issue, the flow breaks down, and small problems turn into dropped sessions and support requests. The reliable approach isn’t complex—it’s consistent: clear expectations, helpful correction paths, and markup that assistive technologies can interpret without ambiguity. That consistency is the foundation of accessible form validation.

Two ideas keep teams focused:
- Validation is the contract. These are the rules the system enforces.
- Error recovery is the experience. This is how you help users get back on track.
You are not “showing error messages.” You are building a recovery flow that answers three questions every time:
1. Do users notice there is a problem?
2. Can they reach the fields that need attention without hunting?
3. Can they fix issues and resubmit without getting stuck in friction loops?
Accessible Form Validation Begins on the Server

Server-side validation is not optional. Client-side code can be disabled, blocked by security policies, broken by script errors, or bypassed by custom clients and direct API calls. The server is the only layer that stays dependable in all of those situations.

Your baseline should look like this:
- A <form> element that can submit without JavaScript.
- A server path that validates and re-renders with field-level errors.
- Client-side validation layered in as an enhancement for speed and clarity.
A minimal baseline:
```
<form action="/checkout" method="post">
 
 <button type="submit">Continue</button>
</form>
```
From there, enhance. Client-side validation is a performance and usability layer (fewer round-trips, faster fixes), but it cannot become the source of truth. In code review terms: if disabling JavaScript makes the form unusable, the architecture is upside down.

Once submission is resilient, you can prevent a large share of errors by tightening the form itself. This foundation keeps your accessible form validation stable even before you begin adding enhancements.

Make the Form Hard to Misunderstand

Many “user errors” are design and implementation gaps with a different label. Prevention starts with intent that is clear during keyboard navigation and screen reader use.

Labels That Do Real Work

Every control needs a programmatic label:
```
<label for="email">Email address</label>
<input id="email" name="email" type="email">
```
Avoid shifting meaning into placeholders. Placeholders disappear on focus and do not behave as labels for assistive technology. If a field is required or has a format expectation, surface that information where it will be encountered during navigation:
```
<label for="postal">
 ZIP code <span class="required">(required, 5 digits)</span>
</label>
<input id="postal" name="postal" inputmode="numeric">
```
This supports basic expectations in WCAG 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions): users can understand what is needed before they submit.

Group Related Inputs

For radio groups, checkbox groups, or multi-part questions, use fieldset + legend so the “question + options” relationship is explicit:
```
<fieldset>
 <legend>Contact preference</legend>

 <label>
   <input type="radio" name="contact" value="email">
   Email
 </label>

 <label>
   <input type="radio" name="contact" value="sms">
   Text message
 </label>
</fieldset>
```
This prevents the common failure where options are read out as a scattered list with no shared context. Screen reader users hear the question and the choices as one unit.

Use the Platform

Choose appropriate input types (email, tel, number, date) to use built-in browser behavior and reduce formatting burden. Normalize on the server instead of making users guess the system’s internal rules:
- Strip spaces and dashes from phone numbers.
- Accept 12345-6789, but store 12345-6789 or 123456789 consistently.
- Accept lowercase, uppercase, and mixed-case email addresses; normalize to lowercase.
The more variation you handle server-side, the fewer opaque errors users see.

Don’t Hide Labels Casually

“Visual-only” placeholders and icon-only fields might look clean in a mock-up, but they:
- Remove a click/tap target that users rely on.
- Make it harder for screen reader users to understand the field.
- This leads to guessing when someone returns to a field later.
If you absolutely must visually hide a label, use a visually-hidden technique that keeps it in the accessibility tree and preserves the click target.

You’ll still have errors, of course—but now they’re about the user’s input, not your form’s ambiguity.

Write Error Messages That Move Someone Forward

An error state is only useful if it helps someone correct the problem. Rules that hold up well in production:
- Describe the problem in text, not just color or icons.
- Whenever possible, include instructions for fixing it.
Instead of: Invalid input

Try: ZIP code must be 5 digits.

Instead of:Enter a valid email

Try: Enter an email in the format name@example.com.

A practical markup pattern is a reusable message container per field:
```
<label for="postal">ZIP code</label>
<input id="postal" name="postal" inputmode="numeric">
<p id="postalHint" class="hint" hidden>
 ZIP code must be 5 digits.
</p>
```
When invalid, show the message and mark the control:
```
<input id="postal"
      name="postal"
      inputmode="numeric"
      aria-invalid="true"
      aria-describedby="postalHint">
```
Visually, use styling to reinforce the error state. Semantically, the combination of text and state is what makes it usable across assistive technologies. Clear, actionable messages are one of the most reliable anchors of accessible form validation, especially when fields depend on precise formats.

With messages in place, your next decision is the presentation pattern.

Pick an Error Pattern That Matches the Form

There is no universal “best” pattern. The decision should reflect how many errors are likely, how long the form is, and how users move through it. Choosing the right pattern is one of the most important decisions in accessible form validation because it shapes how people recover from mistakes.

Pattern A: Alert, Then Focus (Serial Fixing)

Best for short forms (login, simple contact form) where one issue at a time makes sense.

High-level behavior:
1. On submit, validate.
2. If there’s an error, announce it in a live region.
3. Mark the field as invalid and move focus there.
Example (simplified login form):
```
<form id="login" action="/login" method="post" novalidate>
 <label for="username">Username</label>
 <input id="username" name="username" type="text">
 <div id="usernameHint" class="hint" hidden>
   Username is required.
 </div>

 <label for="password">Password</label>
 <input id="password" name="password" type="password">
 <div id="passwordHint" class="hint" hidden>
   Password is required.
 </div>

 <div id="message" aria-live="assertive"></div>

 <button type="submit">Sign in</button>
</form>

<script>
 const form = document.getElementById("login");
 const live = document.getElementById("message");

 function invalidate(fieldId, hintId, announcement) {
   const field = document.getElementById(fieldId);
   const hint = document.getElementById(hintId);

   hint.hidden = false;
   field.setAttribute("aria-invalid", "true");
   field.setAttribute("aria-describedby", hintId);

   live.textContent = announcement;
   field.focus();
 }

 function reset(fieldId, hintId) {
   const field = document.getElementById(fieldId);
   const hint = document.getElementById(hintId);

   hint.hidden = true;
   field.removeAttribute("aria-invalid");
   field.removeAttribute("aria-describedby");
 }

 form.addEventListener("submit", (event) => {
   reset("username", "usernameHint");
   reset("password", "passwordHint");
   live.textContent = "";

   const username = document.getElementById("username").value.trim();
   const password = document.getElementById("password").value;

   if (!username) {
     event.preventDefault();
     invalidate("username", "usernameHint",
       "Your form has errors. Username is required.");
     return;
   }

   if (!password) {
     event.preventDefault();
     invalidate("password", "passwordHint",
       "Your form has errors. Password is required.");
     return;
   }
 });
</script>
```
Tradeoff: On longer forms, this can feel like “whack-a-mole” as you bounce from one error to the next.

Pattern B: Summary at the Top (Errors on Top)

Best when multiple fields can fail at once (checkout, account, applications). Behavior:
1. Validate all fields on submit.
2. Build a summary with links to each failing field.
3. Move the focus to the summary.
This reduces scanning and gives users a clear plan. It also mirrors how many people naturally work through a list: top to bottom, one item at a time. When built with proper linking and focus, this supports WCAG 2.4.3 (Focus Order) and 3.3.1 (Error Identification).

Pattern C: Inline Errors

Best for keeping the problem and the fix in the same visual area. Behavior:
- Show errors next to the relevant control.
- Associate them programmatically with aria-describedby (or aria-errormessage) and mark invalid state.
On its own, inline-only can be hard to scan on long forms. The sweet spot for accessible form validation is often:

Summary + inline

A summary for orientation, inline hints for precision.

Make Errors Machine-Readable: State, Relationships, Announcements

Recovery patterns only help if assistive technology can detect what changed and why. This pattern also matches key WCAG form requirements, which call for clear states, programmatic relationships, and perceivable status updates.

1) State: Mark Invalid Fields

Use aria-invalid="true" for failing controls so screen readers announce “invalid” on focus. This gives immediate feedback without extra navigation.

2) Relationships: Connect Fields to Messages

Use aria-describedby (or aria-errormessage) so the error text is read when the user reaches the field. If a field already has help text, append the error ID rather than overwriting it. This is a common regression point in component refactors.
```
<input id="email"
      name="email"
      type="email"
      aria-describedby="emailHelp emailHint">
```
This approach makes sure users hear both the help and the error instead of losing one when the other is added.

3) Announcements: Form-Level Status

Use a live region to announce that submission failed without forcing a focus jump just to discover that something went wrong:
```
<div id="formStatus" aria-live="assertive"></div>
```
Then, on submit, set text like: “Your form has errors. Please review the list of problems.”

Someone using a screen reader does not have to guess whether the form was submitted, failed, or refreshed. They hear an immediate status update and can move to the summary or fields as needed.

Use Client-Side Validation as a Precision Tool (Without Noise)

Once semantics and recovery are solid, client-side validation can help users move faster—so long as it does not flood them with interruptions.

Guidelines that tend to hold up in production:
- Validate on submit as the baseline behavior.
- Use live checks only when they prevent repeated failures (complex password rules, rate-limited or expensive server checks).
- Prefer “on blur” or debounced validation instead of firing announcements on every keystroke.
- Avoid live region chatter. If assistive tech is announcing updates continuously while someone types, the form is competing with the user.
Handled this way, accessible form validation supports the person filling the form instead of adding cognitive load.

Define “Done” Like You Mean It

For high-stakes submissions (financial, legal, data-modifying), error recovery is not the whole job. Prevention and confirmation matter just as much:
- Review steps before final commit.
- Confirmation patterns where changes are hard to reverse.
- Clear success states that confirm completion.
Then keep a test plan that fits into your workflow:
- Keyboard-only: complete → submit → land on errors → fix → resubmit.
- Screen reader spot check: “invalid” is exposed, error text is read on focus, form-level status is announced.
- Visual checks: no color-only errors, focus is visible, zoom does not break message association.
- Regression rule: validation logic changes trigger recovery-flow retesting.
Teams that fold these checks into their release process see fewer “the form just eats my data” support tickets and have a clearer path when regression bugs surface.

Bringing WCAG Error Patterns Into Your Production Forms

When teams treat error recovery as a first-class experience, forms stop feeling like traps. Users see what went wrong, reach the right control without hunting, and complete the process without unnecessary friction. That is what accessible form validation looks like when it is built for production conditions instead of only passing a demo.

If your team needs clarity on where accessibility should live in your development process, or if responsibility is spread too thinly across roles, a structured strategy can bring confidence and sustainability to your efforts. At 216digital, we help organizations integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into their development roadmap on terms that fit your goals and resources. Scheduling a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing gives you a clear view of where responsibility sits today, where risk tends to build, and what it takes to move toward sustainable, development-led accessibility that your teams can maintain over time.
Greg McNeil

January 22, 2026

How-to Guides, Web Design & Development

Accessibility, forms, How-to, WCAG, Web Accessibility, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility
How Empty Buttons Break Accessibility and How to Fix Them
You’ll run into this sooner or later in accessibility work: everything in a pull request looks fine. Layout sits correctly, icons load, hover states behave, keyboard focus moves. And then you turn on a screen reader, and it announces the same thing over and over:

“Button. Button. Button.”

That’s an empty button.

And yes—teams ship them all the time, even experienced ones.

They show up across small sites, large platforms, custom apps, and CMS-driven systems. Large-scale audits have found them on a significant share of homepages year after year, which tells you this isn’t a “carelessness” problem. Things look correct visually, so nobody questions whether the button actually exposes a name.

Once you see how often that gap slips through, it becomes easier to break the issue apart—what an empty button is at the markup level, why teams run into them so frequently, how screen readers respond to them, and the patterns and fixes that prevent them from resurfacing in future work.

What Empty Buttons Are and Why They Matter

An empty button is a control that does not expose an accessible name. It might not be “empty” visually—the UI may show an icon, a custom SVG, or a shape styled entirely through CSS. It might animate and look fully functional. None of that changes the fact that assistive technology can’t understand what the control does. Visually complete or not, a button without a name is effectively invisible to anyone relying on that information.

Common UI Patterns That Produce Empty Buttons

You’ll see empty buttons come from a handful of predictable patterns:
- Icon-only controls such as search, hamburger menus, close icons, and carousel arrows
- Buttons that use CSS background images or pseudo-elements for their visible “content.”
- SVGs inside a button without a usable label or internal text
- Buttons where text was added through CSS instead of being in the DOM
- Submit or action inputs that never received a value
These patterns all have the same underlying problem: nothing meaningful ends up in the accessibility tree. Even experienced teams get caught by this because none of these cases look broken during normal UI review. The button appears complete, so the missing name goes unnoticed.

Buttons vs Links: Preventing Naming Failures

A fair number of empty buttons start long before anyone looks at labels—they come from using the wrong element altogether. A control can look like a button in the UI, but under the hood, it’s a styled link coming from a CMS. Or a real <button> gets wired up to handle navigation because it was the fastest way to hook into a script. Both choices create avoidable problems.

The semantic rule is not complicated, and it holds up across every framework and CMS:
- Links move the user to a new location.
- Buttons trigger something in the current view.
Assistive technology depends on that distinction. Screen readers keep separate lists for links and buttons. Keyboard users expect different activation behavior. When the markup doesn’t match the intent, the control becomes unpredictable—especially for anyone not relying on visuals to figure out what’s going on.

If you’re working in a design system or component library, this is where discipline pays off. Define two primitives that share the same visual design but render the correct element under the hood:
- A real <button> component for actions
- A LinkButton (or equivalent) that renders an anchor for navigation
You keep visual consistency, but the markup stays honest. That reduces confusion for assistive tech and cuts down on empty-button issues that come from mismatched roles or controls that never get a proper name.

How Screen Readers Handle Empty Buttons

A screen reader can only announce what a button does if it has a real, programmatic name. When that name is missing, the control becomes indistinguishable from every other unlabeled button in the interface. At that point, the user isn’t navigating—they’re guessing.

Screen readers follow a strict naming order. They don’t pull from styling, layout, or anything “visual.” They rely on one of these sources, in this order:
- Visible text inside the <button> element
- aria-label
- aria-labelledby
- Alt text on images inside the button
- The value on an <input type="submit">
Anything outside this list won’t create a name.

That includes:
- CSS content
- Pseudo-elements
- Background images
- Any text that isn’t actually in the DOM
If the label isn’t provided through one of the recognized naming mechanisms, assistive technology has nothing to announce. A lot of empty-button issues come from assuming CSS or decorative SVGs can stand in for meaningful text—they can’t.

When you need to confirm what a screen reader will announce, check the source the same way the browser does. In Chrome or Edge DevTools, open the Accessibility panel and look at Computed Name. If that field is empty, the button has no name for any user relying on a screen reader.

How to Find Empty Buttons Before Release

Catching empty buttons early is far easier than chasing them after a release. A reliable workflow keeps these issues visible long before they reach production, and it doesn’t require heavy tooling—just consistent layers of checks.

Automated Checks for Empty Buttons

Start with automated scans. They’re fast, predictable, and empty buttons show up as clear failures in most tools. They’re straightforward to fix and worth addressing immediately, rather than letting them roll into regressions.

Page-Level Spot Checks in Key UI Areas

After automation, move through the areas where empty buttons tend to cluster:
- Header controls such as search, menu, account, and cart
- Modal and drawer close buttons
- Carousel next/previous controls
- Cookie banners with accept or dismiss icons
In the DOM, look for button elements with no text, empty aria-label values, and input buttons missing a value.

Keyboard and Assistive Technology Checks

Keyboard testing surfaces empty buttons quickly. If focus lands on a control and gives you no indication of its purpose, that’s a naming failure. A short screen reader pass will confirm whether the accessible name is missing.

CMS and Plugin Sources of Empty Buttons

Many empty buttons come from CMS templates and plugins where the markup isn’t easily changed. When you run into one, narrow it down to one of three paths:
- Is there a setting that adds or overrides the label?
- Can the template be patched safely?
- Does the component need to be replaced altogether?
This keeps the work focused on concrete fixes instead of guessing where the problem originated.

Fixing Empty Buttons With Accessible Labels

Most empty buttons come from repeatable markup patterns, so the fixes follow equally repeatable shapes.

Adding Visible Text to Name Buttons
```
<button type="button">Subscribe</button>
```
Providing Labels for Icon-Only Buttons
```
<button type="button" aria-label="Close dialog">
 <svg aria-hidden="true" focusable="false"></svg>
</button>
```
Using Screen-Reader-Only Text for Labels
```
<button type="button">
 <svg aria-hidden="true" focusable="false"></svg>
 <span class="sr-only">Search</span>
</button>
```
Fixing Input Buttons Missing Values
```
<input type="submit" value="Submit" />
```
Using Alt Text Correctly on Image Buttons
```
<button type="submit">
 <img src="email.svg" alt="Subscribe to newsletter">
</button>
```
All of these preserve a stable, accessible name, so the control keeps working even if styles or icons change later.

WCAG Requirements Related to Empty Buttons

When a button has no accessible name, it violates several parts of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These requirements ensure that every interactive control can be understood and operated by people using assistive technology. Empty buttons fall short because they provide no text, label, or programmatic name for a screen reader to announce.

Empty buttons map to several WCAG criteria, most commonly:
- 1.1.1 Non-text Content (A)
- 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (A)
Tools may categorize them differently, but they’re all pointing at the same failure: the control doesn’t expose a usable name.

How to Prevent Empty Buttons Long-Term

Long-term prevention comes from a few small guardrails.

Setting Standards for Icon and Action Buttons

If your team builds icon-button components, require a label prop. That forces naming decisions into the place where they’re easiest to enforce.

Adding Tests to Catch Unnamed Buttons Early

Add tests that check for unnamed buttons in rendered output. Even a small number of targeted cases can stop regressions before they appear in the UI.

Reviewing CMS Output for Labeling Support

When reviewing new plugins or themes, inspect their output. If controls can’t be labeled cleanly, decide early whether they should be configured, patched, or replaced.

Building Better Accessible Buttons

Empty buttons are simple to overlook but deeply disruptive for users who rely on assistive technology. When a button can’t introduce itself, the interface stops feeling usable and starts feeling unpredictable.

From a development standpoint, addressing this isn’t complicated—it just requires intention. Choose the correct semantic element. Provide a name that lives in the DOM. Confirm the accessible name using your tools. And treat CMS and design system choices as part of your front-end architecture, not an afterthought.

If your team wants support refining button patterns, improving audits, or building accessibility practices that scale, 216digital can help. To map WCAG 2.1 requirements into your actual development workflow, schedule an ADA Strategy Briefing and get guidance tailored to your stack and long-term accessibility plans.
Greg McNeil

January 19, 2026

How-to Guides

Accessibility, empty buttons, How-to, WCAG, Web Accessibility, web developers, web development
WCAG 3.3.8: Rethinking Passwords, Codes, and CAPTCHAs
The main login form usually isn’t the problem. It’s everything around it. The retry loop. The MFA branch that forces you to read a code on one device and type it into another. The recovery step that adds a challenge after you’re already stuck. That’s also where “hardening” changes tend to hide—paste blocked, autocomplete disabled, segmented OTP inputs that fight autofill.

If you’ve ever been locked in a loop because you mistyped once, you already know how quickly “secure” turns into “unusable.” For some users that’s just irritating. For others—people dealing with memory limitations, dyslexia, ADHD, anxiety, or plain cognitive overload—it’s the point where access ends. WCAG 3.3.8 is essentially asking for one thing: don’t make recall or manual re-entry the only route through authentication.

What WCAG 3.3.8 Actually Requires for Accessible Authentication

WCAG 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) is easy to misread as “no passwords” or “no MFA.” It’s neither. It’s about whether the user has a path through authentication that does not depend on a cognitive function test. WCAG 3.3.8 focuses on removing authentication steps that rely on memory, transcription, or puzzle-solving when no accessible alternative exists. In practice, you cannot make “remember this” or “retype this” the gate unless you also provide a supported alternative or a mechanism that reduces the cognitive burden.

What Counts as a Cognitive Function Test in Authentication

A cognitive function test includes anything that requires the user to remember, transcribe, or solve something in order to log in. That includes remembering site-specific passwords, typing codes from one device into another, or solving distorted text in a CAPTCHA.

Allowable Alternatives Under WCAG 3.3.8

Under WCAG 3.3.8, a cognitive function test cannot be required at any step in an authentication process unless the page provides at least one of these options:
- An alternative authentication method that does not rely on a cognitive function test
- A mechanism that assists the user, such as password managers or copy and paste
- A test based on object recognition
- A test based on personal non-text content that the user previously provided
Object recognition and personal content are exceptions at Level AA, yet they are still not ideal for many users with cognitive or perceptual disabilities. From an inclusion standpoint, it is better to avoid them when a simpler option exists, such as letting the browser fill in credentials or using passkeys.

This applies to authenticating an existing account and to steps like multi-factor authentication and recovery. It does not formally cover sign-up, although the same patterns usually help there too.

Cognitive Function Tests Hiding in Authentication Flows

Most 3.3.8 issues don’t show up on the main login screen. They show up in the surrounding steps: the retry loop after a failed password, the MFA prompt, the recovery flow, or the extra verification that triggers when traffic looks unusual. When you walk through those paths end-to-end, you can see where memory or transcription slips back in.

Memory-Based Authentication Pressure Points

Asking users to recall a username, password, or passphrase without any assistive mechanism is a cognitive function test. Security questions like “What street did you grow up on” or “What was your first pet’s name” add even more recall pressure, often years after someone created the answers.

Transcription-Based Authentication Pressure Points

Many authentication flows expect people to read a one-time passcode from SMS or an authenticator app and then type it into a separate field. This becomes even harder when paste is blocked or when the code lives on a different device, and the user must move between them.

Puzzle-Style Pressure Points and CAPTCHA

Traditional CAPTCHAs that rely on distorted text, fine detail image selection, or audio that must be transcribed all require perception, memory, and focus under time pressure.

If a CAPTCHA or extra test appears only after multiple failures or “suspicious” activity, it still has to comply with the success criterion.

Fast WCAG 3.3.8 Wins With Password Managers and Paste

Start with the stuff that breaks the widest range of users and is easiest to fix. If a password manager can’t reliably fill the form, or paste is blocked in password or code fields, the flow forces recall and transcription. That’s exactly what WCAG 3.3.8 is trying to remove.

Implementation Details That Improve Accessible Authentication

Allowing password managers to store and fill credentials removes the need for users to remember complex passwords. Allowing paste lets people move secure values from a password manager, secure notes, or another trusted source into the login form without retyping.

Here’s what tends to matter in real implementations:
- Use clear labels and proper input types so browsers and password managers can correctly identify login fields.
- Avoid autocomplete="off" on username and password fields.
- Do not attach scripts that block paste or interfere with autofill.
A basic compliant login form can look like this:
```
<form action="/login" method="post">
 <label for="username">Email</label>
 <input id="username" name="username" type="email"
        autocomplete="username" required>

 <label for="password">Password</label>
 <input id="password" name="password" type="password"
        autocomplete="current-password" required>

 <button type="submit">Log in</button>
 <a href="/forgot-password">Forgot password?</a>
</form>
```
A show password toggle is also helpful. It lets users check what they have typed without guessing, which reduces errors for people who struggle with working memory or fine motor control.

From a security standpoint, allowing paste and password managers aligns with modern guidance. Strong, unique passwords managed by tooling are safer than short patterns that people try to remember across dozens of sites.

Offering Authentication Paths That Reduce Cognitive Load

Even with perfect autofill support, passwords are still a brittle dependency. WCAG 3.3.8 expects at least one route that doesn’t ask the user to remember or retype a secret. Passwordless options are the cleanest way to do that without playing whack-a-mole with edge cases.

Magic Links by Email

Users enter an email address and receive a time-limited, single-use link. Clicking that link completes authentication. Done well, this path removes passwords and codes entirely.

Third-Party Sign In

Signing in with an existing account from a trusted provider can also reduce cognitive load when the external account is already configured for accessible authentication. It shifts the cognitive work away from your login page, so you must still consider whether the rest of your flow remains usable.

When you implement these methods, keep security fundamentals in place. Tokens should be single-use, expire after a reasonable window, and be protected by sensible rate limits. You can keep a strong security posture without making users memorize or transcribe extra values.

Passkeys and WebAuthn as an Accessible Authentication Pattern

Passkeys are one of the rare shifts where security and cognitive accessibility improve together. No remembered secrets. No code transcription. Authentication becomes a device interaction, which lines up cleanly with what WCAG 3.3.8 is trying to achieve.

Why Passkeys Align Well With WCAG 3.3.8

Passkeys based on WebAuthn use public key cryptography tied to the user’s device. Users confirm through a fingerprint, face recognition, device PIN, or a hardware key. They do not have to remember strings or retype codes, which removes a large source of cognitive effort.

A simplified client example might look like this:
```
const cred = await navigator.credentials.get({ publicKey });

await fetch("/auth/webauthn/verify", {
 method: "POST",
 headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" },
 body: JSON.stringify(cred),
});
```
Design your interface so people can choose the method that works best for them. Do not force a single modality. Some users will prefer biometrics, others a hardware key, others a platform prompt. Always keep an accessible fallback available in case a device method fails.

Rethinking MFA Without Creating New WCAG 3.3.8 Barriers

MFA is where a lot of otherwise compliant logins fail. The password step might be fine, then the second factor turns into a transcription test. If the only available MFA path is “read six digits and type them,” you don’t actually have a low cognitive route through authentication under WCAG 3.3.8.

MFA Patterns That Avoid Cognitive Barriers
- Push notifications that allow the user to approve a sign-in with a simple action.
- Hardware security keys that require a button press instead of code entry.
- Device prompts that rely on the operating system’s secure authentication methods.
If OTP is staying, the bar is simple. Make it fillable and pasteable, and don’t punish slower entry.
- Allow paste and platform autofill for OTP fields.
- Avoid very short expiration windows that penalize slower users.
- Be careful with multi-input digit fields and ensure they support pasting a full code.
A basic single-field OTP input can look like this:
```
<label for="otp">Verification code</label>
<input id="otp" name="otp"
      inputmode="numeric"
      autocomplete="one-time-code">
```
This keeps the security benefit of MFA without turning the second factor into a failure point.

CAPTCHA and Bot Protection Without Cognitive Puzzles

CAPTCHAs often get introduced after a login endpoint gets abused. The default implementations are usually cognitive tests, and they tend to appear when the user is already in a retry loop or being flagged as suspicious. That is a bad time to add a puzzle.

Bot-Mitigation Patterns That Don’t Burden the User

Object recognition and personal content challenges may technically meet Level AA, but they still exclude many users and should not be your first choice. A better strategy is to move bot checks out of the user’s direct path whenever possible.

Prefer controls that don’t ask the user to prove they’re human:
- Rate-limiting login attempts.
- Device or geo-based risk checks.
- Invisible CAPTCHA that runs in the background.
- Honeypot inputs that automated scripts are likely to fill.
For example, a simple honeypot field can look like this:
```
<div style="position:absolute;left:-9999px" aria-hidden="true">
 <label for="website">Website leave blank</label>
 <input id="website" name="website" tabindex="-1" autocomplete="off">
</div>
```
If the backend treats any non-empty value as a bot signal, most automated scripts are filtered without showing users a challenge at all.

Testing Authentication Journeys Against WCAG 3.3.8

You can’t validate WCAG 3.3.8 from markup alone. You need to run the flow the way users actually run it, including autofill, paste, and OS prompts. Then you need to intentionally trigger the “extra verification” paths because that’s where most failures live.

Manual Tests That Matter for Accessible Authentication
- Log in with a browser password manager and a popular third-party password manager.
- Confirm that paste works in username, password, and OTP inputs.
- Trigger retry flows, lockouts, and “suspicious” paths and check for hidden CAPTCHAs or extra steps.
- Walk through every MFA route and confirm that at least one complete path avoids unsupported cognitive tests.
Automated Checks for the Supporting Code

Automation still helps as a tripwire, just not as the final verdict. Custom checks can flag:
- Inputs with autocomplete="off" where credentials belong
- Password and OTP fields that attach paste blocking handlers
- Known CAPTCHA patterns that appear in authentication contexts
The target is not “no friction.” The target is “no cognitive gate without a supported way through it.”

Improving Login Usability Through WCAG 3.3.8

WCAG 3.3.8 is much easier to handle when you treat authentication as a system, not a single screen. Most barriers show up in the supporting paths, not the main form. Once those routes are mapped and cleaned up, keeping at least one low-cognitive path end to end stops feeling like extra work and starts feeling like a more stable design pattern. You still keep strong security, but you drop the steps that slow users down or lock them out.

If you want help threading accessible authentication and broader WCAG 2.2 requirements into your existing roadmap, 216digital can support that process. To see what that could look like for your team, you can schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing.
Greg McNeil

January 14, 2026

How-to Guides

Accessibility, How-to, WCAG, WCAG 3.3.8, WCAG Compliance, WCAG conformance, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility
YouTube Accessibility: Captions, Audio, and Design
Most teams watch views, watch time, and subscribers like hawks. But there is another number that matters, even if you never see it in analytics. How many people tried to watch your video and left because it was hard to follow?

That question sits at the heart of YouTube accessibility.

YouTube is one of the biggest marketing channels most brands rely on. It powers product explainers, support content, training, webinars, and the videos embedded on your website. When the video is hard to use, that friction follows your brand.

Now, YouTube does a few things well out of the box. The player is responsive, the controls are built in, and keyboard shortcuts are already there. Screen reader support is strong, too. Still, the creator side matters most. Captions, transcripts, audio description, visual design, structure, and testing are all handled by your team. None of this needs to be complicated, and it scales well once it’s part of your workflow.

Start With a Plan for YouTube Accessibility

If accessibility starts after the upload, it usually turns into cleanup work. Cleanup is slower. It costs more. It also leads to compromises, like leaving a confusing visual in place because the edit timeline is already locked.

Planning earlier changes the whole experience. When you build accessibility into the script and storyboard, you can:
- Read on-screen text out loud as you write it.
- Explain charts and visuals in the same moment they appear.
- Avoid abrupt effects that some viewers may not handle.
- Save time by choosing caption and transcript steps up front.
Set a Baseline and Assign Ownership

A simple shift helps. Treat accessibility checkpoints like production milestones. Put them beside script approval, rough cut, and final cut. When a team does this, rework drops fast, especially for repeat formats like weekly updates or a recurring demo series.

It also helps define a baseline for each video type. A solid default for prerecorded content often includes accurate captions, a transcript viewers can access outside the player, and narration that explains important visuals. Then you layer in needs by format. Tutorials often need stronger descriptive narration. Short marketing clips need careful contrast and motion choices. Webinars and livestreams need reliable audio and a caption plan.

This is also about roles. Every script needs a clear owner. Captions deserve someone who reviews them thoughtfully. Contrast and motion checks should fall to a named reviewer. And the final accessibility pass needs an accountable person before anything goes live. Without that clarity, tasks slip—not from a lack of care, but from uncertainty about who handles the final step.

Tip: build a short “definition of done” for a video. If the checklist lives in the same place as your content calendar or project tickets, it gets used.

Captions That Hold Up Under Review for YouTube Accessibility

Captions are often treated like a marketing feature. They increase overall watch time. Search performance benefits. And viewers stay engaged, even in public settings. All true. But captions also carry a basic promise to Deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers. The promise is simple. The words matter, and you should be able to access them.

Standards matter here, too. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) includes caption requirements for prerecorded and live video. Auto-captions are rarely enough on their own. Names get dropped. Product terms get mangled. Key phrases come back as nonsense. If your content includes instructions, legal details, or health and safety steps, “close enough” captions can become a serious problem.

Choose a Workflow You Can Repeat

Your workflow can still be practical. In YouTube Studio, most teams choose one approach and stick with it:
- Upload a caption file, like SRT or VTT, created in an editor or third-party tool.
- Start with auto-captions, then edit and correct them.
- Type captions in YouTube’s editor for shorter videos.
What matters is consistency. Pick a standard and apply it. Many teams upload edited caption files for major videos and review auto-captions for low-risk clips. That can work, as long as “reviewed” means a real check.

A quick quality checklist helps:
- Accuracy: capture what is said, plus key sound cues when they change meaning
- Timing: captions should appear with the speech, not late or early
- Readability: short chunks, correct punctuation, and speaker labels when needed
- Placement: do not cover critical visuals if you can avoid it
Two caption details teams often miss:
- Numbers and units: “15” vs “50” is not a small error in a demo or training video.
- Proper nouns: product names, locations, and people’s names are where auto-captions tend to drift.
Livestreams Need a Follow-Up Step

Livestreams add pressure because content is happening in real time. Live captioning can still be useful, but it depends heavily on audio quality. Use a strong mic. Reduce background noise. Speak clearly. Then, when the livestream becomes an archived video, upload corrected captions. That keeps the recording usable long after the event ends.

Transcripts and Chapters for YouTube Accessibility

Captions are not the same as transcripts. Captions are synced to the video. Transcripts live outside the player. They let people scan, search, and jump to what they need.

It helps to separate three things:
- Captions: synced text that follows audio
- Transcripts: full text of spoken content, not tied to exact timing
- Descriptive transcripts: transcripts that also include important visual info
Transcripts support more than disability access. They also help people who learn better by reading. For anyone who wants to revisit a specific tutorial step, a transcript makes it easy to review without rewatching the entire video. And when a user needs to search for a key phrase, the text lets them jump directly to the right section.

Chapters Make Long Videos Easier to Navigate

Chapters matter for the same reason. Long videos are easier to use when viewers can jump straight to what they need. For tutorials, webinars, and explainers, add timestamps and clear chapter titles. Skip vague labels like “Step 3.” Use names that match what a person is trying to do, like “Turn on captions in YouTube Studio” or “Fix timing and speaker labels.”

A simple way to level up chapters is to write them like help-center headings. If the title sounds useful on a support page, it will likely be useful in a video, too.

Bring Transcripts Onto Your Website

If you embed videos on your website, do not hide the transcript behind extra clicks. Put the transcript on the page, or link to it right next to the player. This helps users decide if the video is worth watching. It also helps your site’s content, as the page now includes the same information in an easy-to-scan format.

Audio Description for YouTube Accessibility

Many teams assume audio description means a big budget and a separate production track. Sometimes it does. Often, it does not.

The real question is whether the video includes meaningful visual details that are not shared in the audio. When a chart appears without explanation, that creates a gap. On-screen instructions that happen without being spoken create the same problem. And when important text is shown visually but never read aloud, that is another gap.

Descriptive Narration Works Well for Demos

In a talking-head video where the speaker explains everything, extra description may not be needed. But tutorials and demos are different. They rely on what the viewer sees. That is where descriptive narration becomes a strong option. The presenter can name what they are clicking, what changed on screen, and what the viewer should look for next.

A helpful habit in demos is to replace vague phrases with concrete ones. Instead of “click this,” say “select Settings,” or “open the Captions tab,” or “choose English from the language menu.” That supports more viewers than you might expect, including people watching on small screens.

Some teams also publish a second version, clearly labeled, like “with audio description,” when visuals are dense and constant. That approach can work well for training content, data-heavy explainers, or detailed product walkthroughs.

Whether you use narration or a described version, keep descriptions concise and focused. Describe what changes the meaning. Place it in natural pauses. Keep the tone neutral and consistent with the video’s style.

Visual Design Choices for YouTube Accessibility

Video design can either support understanding or fight against it. Many accessibility issues show up in the same places, again and again. Thumbnails. On-screen text. Contrast. Motion.

Contrast is a clear example. WCAG guidance uses targets like 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text. Apply that mindset to thumbnails, titles, lower thirds, and callouts. If you need to place text over video footage, add a background block to keep it readable. Small text, thin fonts, and low contrast do not just look “clean.” They disappear for many viewers.

Tip: if it is important enough to show, it is important enough to leave up long enough to read. Fast overlays are a common source of missed information.

Reduce Flashing and Overly Fast Motion

Motion is another common trap. Fast flashing edits and strobe-like overlays can create real harm for some people. Avoid rapid flashing effects. Keep motion smooth. If an edit feels intense, it probably is. Review the sequence before publishing.

Do Not Rely on Color Alone

Also, do not rely solely on color to convey meaning. If a chart uses red and green, add labels. If an overlay uses color to mark “good” and “bad,” add shapes or text. And if something important appears visually, say it out loud too. That single habit supports many people at once.

Embedding and Ongoing Checks for YouTube Accessibility

The standard YouTube embed gives you a lot. Player controls are built in. Keyboard operation is supported. The player adapts across screen sizes. Those are strong foundations.

But your website still needs to do its part. An embedded video should not sit alone. Give it context:
- A descriptive heading before the player
- A short summary of what the video covers
- A transcript on the page, or a clear link to it nearby
Avoid auto-play when possible, especially with sound. Auto-play can overwhelm users and can make it harder for screen reader users to orient themselves on the page.

Quick Checks to Add to QA

Testing does not need to be complex. Build a few checks into QA:
- Can you reach and operate the player with only a keyboard?
- Does focus move in and out of the player in a predictable way?
- Are captions available and working in the embedded view?
- If you provide a described version, is it easy to find and understand?
Hit Play on YouTube Accessibility

Creating accessible YouTube content is not about chasing perfection or rebuilding your process from scratch. It is about making intentional choices that let more people engage with your videos, whether they are watching, listening, reading, or browsing. When captions are accurate, visuals are clear, and narration carries meaning, your content works harder and reaches further.

At 216digital, we help teams turn accessibility from a checklist into a sustainable strategy. We work with you to integrate WCAG 2.1 accessibility requirements into your video and web development roadmap, tailored to your tools, timelines, and business goals. From reviewing existing video content to building repeatable workflows for captions, transcripts, and embedded media, our focus is on progress you can maintain.

If you want guidance on strengthening your YouTube accessibility practices and aligning them with your digital accessibility goals, schedule a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing with our team. We’ll help you make a plan that fits your team and your release cycles—on your terms.
Greg McNeil

December 12, 2025

How-to Guides

Accessibility, captions, Closed caption, How-to, screen readers, videos and audio content, Website Accessibility, Youtube
Accessible 404 Page: Turn Errors Into Wins

You click a link with a clear goal in mind and, instead of the content you expect, you hit a 404 page. For a second or two, you wonder whether you mistyped the URL, the site is broken, or if the content has disappeared. In that short pause, trust gets shaky. This is also where web accessibility and UX come together in a very real way: either the page leaves people stuck, or it gently helps them move forward.

That “not found” state is often seen as a throwaway screen, something the server shows when nothing else fits. With a bit of planning, this moment can be a calm, honest checkpoint. It explains what happened, offers clear next steps, and reassures people they’re still in the right place.

In the sections ahead, we will unpack what a 404 really is, how to frame it as a recovery rather than a failure, which inclusive design patterns matter most, and how architecture and analytics can support that work. By building this foundation, we can see how each layer—technical, experiential, and strategic—interacts to create an error response that turns an obstacle into a small signal of care that feels intentional, helpful, and human.

What a 404 Really Is — and Why It Happens

At the technical level, a 404 response is straightforward: the server looked at the requested URL and could not find a matching resource. That might be because content moved, a slug changed during a redesign, a redirect rule was missed, or the link was simply typed incorrectly.

The reality on most teams is a little more complicated. Content is added and removed over the years. Campaign landing pages go live for a season and then vanish. Migrations reshuffle URL patterns. Old PDFs and email templates keep sending people to paths that no longer exist. Over time, these small changes add up to a steady stream of “not found” visits.

Each of these visits is more than a missing document. It is a broken step in a user journey. Someone who trusted your link now has to decide whether to keep going, try again, or leave. Search engines see this pattern too: a cluster of broken internal links or confusing responses can send negative signals over time.

Treating that view as a recovery screen changes how you design. Instead of thinking, “The request failed,” you start asking, “How do we help this person take a meaningful next step?” This shift leads directly into the principles that guide effective 404 experiences.

Principles Before Pixels: A High-Performing 404 page Experience

Before you sketch a layout or write a clever line, it helps to agree on a few guiding ideas.

1. Accessibility is Not Optional

If parts of your experience are already hard to use, a broken link makes things worse. Folding the 404 template into your larger accessibility strategy ensures that the same care you give your main flows also applies in edge cases.

2. Clarity First, Personality Second

A bit of humor can soften the moment, but only after the page explains what went wrong and what the user can do now. Plain language always wins in high-friction states.

3.Stay On-brand

The 404 view should reuse the same typography, color system, and navigation patterns as the rest of the site. That continuity tells people they are still inside a trusted environment, even though something went wrong.

4. Focus On Recovery, Not Apology

A short, human message is important, but the screen’s real job is to provide useful paths forward and to gather enough data that you can keep improving the template over time.

Designing with these principles in mind sets you up to turn the 404 view into a small but meaningful part of the overall experience instead of a forgotten corner. Now, let’s look at the specific accessibility must-haves that support such inclusive error states.

Accessibility Must-Haves for an Accessible 404 page

When someone lands on an error view, they are already a little off-balance. The job of an accessible 404 page is simple: make it clear what happened, make it easy to recover, and make sure that experience works for more than one way of browsing. This is where UX and web accessibility meet in a very practical way.

A Clear Statement of What Happened

Start with a direct, plain-language heading that names the situation: “Page not found” or “We can’t find that page.” The short text that follows should explain, in one or two sentences, what that means and what the person can do next. No jargon. No blame. Just context and next steps.

A Layout That Still Feels Like “Your” Site

Even in an error state, users should feel grounded. Keep the same basic frame as the rest of your site—header, footer, typography, and overall rhythm. Familiar structure helps people using assistive tech or high zoom recognise that they have not been dropped somewhere unsafe or unrelated.

Recovery Paths That Are Easy to Spot and Use

The main routes off the page—a primary button, a search field, a small set of helpful links—should be visible without hunting and usable for people who navigate in different ways. That means clear labels, sensible tab order, and enough spacing that links and buttons are easy to pick out at a glance.

Text and Visuals That Hold Up Under Strain

Treat this template as a first-class reading experience. Body copy should be large enough, well spaced, and set against backgrounds with solid contrast. Any illustrations should support the message, not compete with it. If the visuals are just there for tone, they should be easy to ignore for anyone focused on getting back on track.

A Moment That Stays Stable, Not Jumpy

When someone reaches your 404 page, they need a beat to understand where they are and decide what to do. Avoid sudden auto-redirects or timed jumps away from the screen. A stable state is kinder to screen-reader users, keyboard users, and anyone who simply reads at a different pace—and it aligns with the spirit of web accessibility as a whole.

Page Anatomy: What to Include on Your 404 page

Once the foundation is set, you can start thinking about the screen’s anatomy.

Start with a headline and a brief empathy line. Something like, “We can’t find that page. Let’s get you back to something useful,” is honest and calm. It acknowledges the break without blaming the user or hiding behind technical jargon.

Next, add primary recovery paths. Place a clear button to your home page or a key hub to make resetting easy. A search field gives control to people who know what they seek. Short lists of curated links—popular sections, current campaigns, most-read articles—offer quick options if visitors want to explore.

Consider including a small, accessible feedback mechanism, such as a link that says, “Tell us if this link is broken.” When wired into your issue-tracking or analytics layer, this can reveal patterns that automation alone might miss.

Visually, keep the layout simple and open. Maintain your main header and footer so orientation is never in doubt. If the user came from a specific area, such as “/blog/” or “/support/,” you can surface related links to those sections to respect their original intent. In every case, ask whether the design makes it obvious what to do next.

Under the Hood: Technical Details That Support the Experience

The best copy and layout will fall short if the underlying implementation is weak. Your 404 page should be backed by correct HTTP status codes so search engines and monitoring tools know what is happening. For permanently removed content, a 410 status may make more sense than a 404, but the visual template can remain the same.

In client-side apps, routing logic needs extra care. When a user visits an unknown path, your router should render the error template and, when possible, coordinate with the server so that crawlers also receive the correct signal. Focus management, skip links, and semantic markup should be tested together so that the experience holds up for people using assistive technology. These technical details are small, but they add up to better web accessibility in the moments when users most need guidance.

Caching and performance matter here as well. Configure your CDN so error responses are cached sensibly, and ensure the template itself loads quickly with minimal heavy scripting. People are already dealing with a disruption; they should not have to wait for the recovery tools to appear.

Do not forget metadata. A clear title like “404 – Page not found” and well-structured meta tags make the state easier to recognise in analytics dashboards and open tabs. If your site serves multiple languages or regions, localise the copy and the key links so the experience feels considered, not generic.

Analytics, Monitoring, and Continuous Cleanup

A recovery view is not “done” once it ships. Logging and analytics should tell you how often people hit it, which paths send them there, and what they do next. Over time, this reveals where your architecture is working well and where it is quietly letting visitors down.

Simple dashboards can highlight the most common missing URLs, the internal pages that generate the most errors, and the CTAs that lead to successful recovery versus quick exits. You can even test variations of copy or link groupings to see which version helps more journeys continue.

Seen this way, the 404 page becomes a kind of listening post. It shows you where expectations and reality do not match—and gives you a place to respond with better structure, clearer navigation, and stronger web accessibility patterns.

Governance: Building Habits That Reduce Future 404s

Preventing needless errors is a shared responsibility. When content owners remove or rename pages, they should follow a simple checklist: update internal links, add redirects where appropriate, and document what has changed. Marketing teams should plan end-of-life steps for campaign URLs instead of letting them quietly break. Developers can integrate link checking into CI to catch internal broken links before launch.

For design and UX teams, the error view should live inside the design system as a standard template with clear accessibility criteria. During QA, it should receive the same level of attention as a key landing page: keyboard-only walkthroughs, high-zoom checks, screen-reader tests, and mobile scenarios. These habits turn one fragile corner of the site into a dependable part of your service.

Education is the final layer. When teams see the 404 state not as a failure but as a recoverable moment, they are more likely to invest in it. When they understand that good handling here is part of web accessibility, not just “nice to have” polish, they will keep it in scope during redesigns and migrations instead of leaving it behind.

Not All Wrong Turns Are Dead Ends

A missing resource will always create a small moment of friction, but what happens next is up to you. Treated with care, a well-designed 404 page becomes proof of how you handle the unexpected: calmly, clearly, and with respect for every visitor’s needs.

When people land on a thoughtful, well-structured error template, they stay oriented, feel supported, and are more likely to continue their journey with your brand. You protect trust, learn from the patterns that brought them there, and strengthen both your UX and your web accessibility at the same time.

If you would like a fresh perspective on how your own error and recovery states are working for users, the team at 216digital would be glad to help. An ADA briefing can surface quick wins, highlight deeper structural opportunities, and give your teams practical, actionable next steps.

The next time someone takes a wrong turn on your site, they will not just see a dead end. They will see a clear map forward—and a quiet signal that someone on the other side of the screen has their back.

Greg McNeil

November 21, 2025

How-to Guides

404 page, How-to, Web Accessibility, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility
How Content Order Impacts Accessibility and User Experience
If you build modern interfaces, you probably lean on Flexbox, Grid, and positioning every day. With a few lines of CSS, you can rearrange entire sections, change layouts at different breakpoints, and keep one codebase working across phones, laptops, and large screens.

The downside is easier to miss: the more we shuffle things visually, the more likely it is that the visual order drifts from the actual HTML order and undermines accessibility. When that happens, people using a keyboard or screen reader can have a very different experience from what the design suggests. Focus jumps in ways they don’t expect. Announcements feel out of place. It becomes harder to stay oriented on the page.

For users who rely on assistive tech, it can feel disorienting when the page organization changes unexpectedly. “Next” may not always mean “next,” and navigating the page can require more effort to stay oriented.

This isn’t only a UX problem. It ties directly to WCAG 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence and 2.4.3 Focus Order, which both expect content and focus to follow a logical, predictable path. That same alignment supports accessibility and reduces risk from a legal perspective.

In the rest of this article, we’ll look at how order breaks, where they tend to happen, and practical ways to design, test, and fix layouts so they stay flexible without becoming unpredictable.

Why Content Order Matters More Than It Looks

How Assistive Technologies See Your Layout and Accessibility

Screen readers don’t “see” layout. They move through the DOM in source order, using headings, landmarks, lists, and controls to understand how the page is structured. That’s the experience for someone listening linearly or jumping by element type.

Keyboard users follow the same underlying map. Each press of Tab moves through links, buttons, and form fields in DOM order, unless you’ve changed it with tabindex or custom scripting.

When the visual layout suggests one order and the DOM provides another, people feel things like:
- Focus jumping to unexpected areas.
- Content is being announced without a clear context.
- A mental model of the page that never really settles
Once trust is lost, every interaction requires more effort.

WCAG’s View: Meaningful Sequence, Focus Order, and Accessibility

Two Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) criteria are especially relevant:
- WCAG 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence requires at least one programmatically determinable reading order that preserves meaning. If someone moves through the content in DOM order, it still needs to make sense.
- WCAG 2.4.3 Focus Order requires that focusable elements receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability. Keyboard users should not feel like focus is bouncing randomly around the page.
These expectations sit near the center of a solid accessibility approach.WCAG does not forbid visual rearrangement. It becomes a problem when the rearrangement changes how users understand the page or makes it harder to complete tasks. There can be more than one acceptable logical order, but at least one needs to be consistent and predictable.

The Human Impact Behind Accessibility

Behind these rules are people trying to do simple things: check an account, complete a form, submit a request.

Users with low vision or some cognitive disabilities may rely heavily on predictable patterns to stay oriented. They remember where search usually appears, where the main button usually sits, and how navigation is arranged.

Keyboard and screen reader users build similar expectations over time. When focus jumps in ways that don’t line up with what they see on screen, they lose confidence in the layout. Some keep going, slowly. Others stop and leave.

How CSS Reordering Breaks Reading and Focus Order

Common CSS Features That Can Disrupt Logical Order and Accessibility

Most order-related issues come from a small set of tools we use all the time:
- position: absolute or position: fixed, which pull elements out of normal flow
- The order property in Flexbox and Grid
- flex-direction: row-reverse and column-reverse
- Grid behaviors like grid-auto-flow: dense, line-based positioning, and grid-template-areas
These features are useful, and sometimes necessary. Problems begin when they’re used to fix hierarchy or flow rather than just adjust appearance.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Navigation Example

Say the DOM order for your navigation is: Home, Contact, About, Blog.

Design wants “Contact” on the far right, so you use order in a flex container to produce: Home, About, Blog, Contact.

Visually, this layout looks correct. However, for a keyboard user, pressing Tab navigates in the following order: Home, Contact, About, Blog. This means focus jumps from Home to Contact (on the far right), then back to About and Blog (toward the center).

This jump is unexpected, as nothing on-screen explains why the focus shifts. Screen reader users also hear a sequence that doesn’t match the visual layout, making navigation confusing.

Card Layout Example

You have a grid of cards, and you want a “featured” card at the top. Instead of moving it in the DOM, you position it using Grid placement or position: absolute.

On screen, it appears first. In the DOM, it still sits midway through the list. Keyboard and screen reader users only encounter it after several other cards, even though the design is signaling that it’s the main item.

Screen Readers and Flex/Grid Nuances

Different browser and screen reader combinations handle Flexbox and Grid differently. Some combinations try to align with visual order in certain situations; others follow DOM order strictly. That behavior can also change over time as engines evolve.

The safe rule is simple: treat DOM order as the source of truth. If the order matters to the user, fix it in the markup, not just in CSS.

Real-World Patterns Where Things Go Wrong

These patterns show up often in production interfaces and quietly cause accessibility problems if no one is watching for them.

Global Navigation and Utility Links

Common issues in navigation and headers include:
- Moving “Contact,” “Sign in,” or “Cart” to the far right using order or reversed flex directions
- Placing search or language controls visually near the top, but leaving them late in the DOM
Keyboard users end up with a navigation path that feels out of sync with what they see.

Hero Sections, Promos, and Feature Blocks

Hero areas and promotional content can introduce similar gaps:
- A main hero button that visually looks like the first action but appears later in the DOM
- Promotional banners positioned over content but rendered late, so focus reaches them long after users expect
Design signals one priority; source order signals another.

Forms and Multi-Column Layouts

Multi-column forms look neat, but they’re easy to misalign structurally:
- DOM order runs all the way down the left column, then all the way down the right, while the visual layout suggests row-by-row reading
- Error messages or helper text appear far from the related fields in the DOM.
Screen readers end up reading labels, inputs, and messages in a confusing sequence.

Dashboards and Responsive Grids

Dashboards and grid layouts bring their own risks:
- Drag-and-drop widgets change visual position, but the DOM order stays the same.
- Product or article grids change column counts across breakpoints, but the underlying order still reflects the original layout.
Sighted users see one arrangement; keyboard and screen reader users move through another.

Designing Layouts That Keep Source & Visual Order in Sync

A helpful first check: if you remove all CSS, does the page still read in a sensible way from top to bottom?

Start with headings, landmarks, and content in a logical sequence. Use HTML elements that match their purpose, and add ARIA landmarks only when they’re truly needed. The better the structure, the easier everything else becomes.

Treat DOM Order as the Single Source of Truth

Set a clear expectation within your team:

If something needs to move for meaning or flow, change its position in the DOM instead of relying on visual reordering.

Reserve Flexbox/Grid order and absolute positioning for small visual refinements that don’t change the content’s meaning. When the markup matches the intended reading order, ongoing accessibility work stays much more manageable.

Mobile-First Thinking to Avoid Reordering Hacks

Designing from the smallest breakpoint forces you to decide what actually comes first in the linear flow. Once that order is set, larger layouts should build on it rather than fight it.

Instead of relying on row-reverse or heavy reordering to fix desktop layouts, adjust your HTML so each breakpoint builds on the same clear sequence.

When Visual and Logical Order Can Safely Diverge

There are places where visual and DOM order can differ without causing issues, such as:
- Independent articles or cards that don’t depend on each other
- Decorative elements whose position doesn’t change the meaning or task flow
Even there, keep focus order predictable within each unit and keep related elements together.

Responsive Design and the Reordering Trap

Responsive layouts often move panels around: sidebars shift from right to top, filters move above or below results, utility sections change position as the screen shrinks.

If those changes are made only with Flexbox or Grid reordering rather than structural changes, keyboard focus and reading order can feel out of sync with the visual layout. Over time, that chips away at accessibility across breakpoints.

Strategies to Avoid Paint-Over Layouts

A few practical habits help here:
- Prefer stacking and modest visual shifts over large reordering jumps.
- Decide early how content should flow linearly as the viewport changes.
- When you do reorder at a breakpoint, test that view with keyboard and assistive tech, not just by eye.
Emerging Tools: reading-flow and Future Support

New CSS features like reading-flow (currently available in some browsers) aim to align reading and focus order with visual order in flex, grid, and block layouts.

They’re promising, but support is still evolving. Treat them as enhancements, not a replacement for a clean structure. A clear DOM order will remain the more stable foundation.

Testing Reading and Focus Order in Everyday Workflows

Keyboard-Only Walkthroughs

One of the simplest and most useful tests is to set the mouse aside and use only the keyboard.

Tab through navigation, search, forms, checkout, and key dashboards. Watch for:
- Focus landing in unexpected places.
- Important elements are being skipped.
- Visible focus not matching what you would expect to come next.
This kind of quick check catches many accessibility issues long before formal testing.

Using Tools to Visualize Tab Stops and Sequences

There are tools and browser extensions that overlay numbers and lines to show the actual tab sequence. They make it easy to see when Flexbox, Grid, or positioning has produced a focus path that doesn’t match the design.

Adding these checks to regular QA is more effective than treating them as a one-time audit.

Screen Reader Spot-Checks

Short passes with a screen reader are also valuable. With NVDA, VoiceOver, or another option, move through key flows and confirm:
- Headings and regions follow a logical sequence.
- Instructions, labels, fields, and messages appear together in a sensible order.
Structural Smoke Tests in the Browser

For a quick structural check, temporarily disable CSS in dev tools or with an extension, then read the page in DOM order.

If it still makes sense, you likely have a solid base. If not, you’ve found a structural problem that is worth fixing before it spreads.

Fixing Existing Interfaces Without Starting From Scratch

Prioritize High-Risk Flows First

You don’t need to refactor everything at once. Start where order matters most:
- Global navigation
- Sign-up and sign-in flows
- Checkout and payment
- Important forms and dashboards
Compare how the layout looks with how keyboard focus and reading order actually move, and note the mismatches that affect meaning or task success.

Refactor Layouts to Respect Source Order

From there, adjust markup so the DOM reflects the intended order:
- Move sections in the HTML so they match the intended sequence.
- Group labels, fields, and messages together
- Replace heavy CSS-based reordering with patterns that rely on better structure.
This improves usability and gives you a more predictable layout to maintain long-term accessibility.

Bake Order Rules Into Your Design System

Your design system is a good place to codify these expectations:
- The visual and DOM orders should match by default.
- Exceptions must be documented and tested.
- Core layout components for nav, cards, and forms should ship with safe reading and focus patterns built in.
Continuous Improvements, Not One-Off Accessibility Cleanup

Order and focus shouldn’t be left to occasional audits. Add a few simple checks to code review:
- Does tab order match what we see?
- Are we using order, row-reverse, column-reverse, or absolute positioning in ways that might change meaning?
Where it fits, linting or CI rules can also flag risky layout patterns early.

Source Order: The Thing You Can’t Fake With CSS

When visual layout and DOM order stay aligned, interfaces feel calmer and easier to use. People can trust that what they see on screen matches what their keyboard and tools will encounter.

Small structural decisions—good HTML order, clear roles, careful use of layout features—can make a noticeable difference in both user experience, accessibility, and compliance.

If your team is planning a redesign, cleaning up legacy layouts, or just trying to understand where to focus first, you don’t have to figure everything out alone. An ADA-focused briefing with 216digital can help you map out your highest-impact order issues, connect them to legal risk, and build better habits into your ongoing design and development work.

When you’re ready, setting up that conversation can give your next release cycle a stronger foundation—visually, technically, and legally.
Greg McNeil

November 17, 2025

How-to Guides, WCAG Compliance

content order, How-to, User Experience, WCAG, WCAG conformance, web developers, web development
Cart Abandonment: The Silent Cost of Inaccessible Checkout
If you’re responsible for an eCommerce checkout, you probably know the feeling: traffic looks healthy, people add items to their carts, and yet the numbers at the finish line never quite match the intent you can see earlier in the funnel. You fix the obvious bugs, streamline a few steps, experiment with payment options, and the needle moves—but usually not enough to fully account for the gap.

It’s tempting to attribute the rest to “user behavior,” pricing sensitivity, or simple indecision. But a meaningful share of that loss is not hesitation at all. It’s customers who hit a barrier inside the flow—often a barrier created by inaccessible patterns—and simply cannot complete the purchase. In your analytics, those sessions still get categorized as cart abandonment. For the shopper, it feels less like they changed their mind and more like the checkout stopped cooperating.

This article looks at that gap through the lens of accessibility: how small barriers in your checkout path quietly push people out, and how addressing them can reduce friction, improve completion, and recover revenue you’re already paying to acquire.

The Hidden Cost of Inaccessibility

Most dashboards tell a similar story: high abandonment rates, drop-offs at payment, and plenty of incomplete sessions. The data is clear; the underlying causes are not always visible.

Globally, more than 70% of online carts never convert. Baymard’s research estimates that businesses could recover more than $260 billion in sales each year by improving usability and accessibility alone.That’s not a small optimization; it’s a massive opportunity.

At a basic level, we call it cart abandonment when someone adds items and doesn’t check out. But that neutral phrase conceals a tougher reality: some portion of those “abandons” are people who wanted to buy and couldn’t, because the experience failed them at exactly the moment it mattered.

When Barriers Replace Intent

Consider a payment form where errors appear only as red text, with no programmatic association to the invalid field and no meaningful ARIA support. A screen reader user presses “Submit.” The page refreshes. There is no announcement, no clear cue, and no directional feedback—just silence. From their perspective, nothing happened, and the flow provides no recoverable path forward.

Or take a tiny “I agree” checkbox with a narrow hit area that is difficult to activate with limited motor control—or, just as realistically, on a small phone while holding a coffee. Or a “Place order” button with low contrast that visually disappears into its background for users with low vision, glare, or reduced contrast sensitivity.

In each case, the user’s intent has not changed; the interface has simply become uncooperative. The business loses the sale, and the customer leaves wondering whether this is a brand they can trust with future purchases. Your analytics show an exit, but they do not reveal the barrier that caused it.

Your analytics show an exit. They don’t show the barrier that caused it.

Why Cart Abandonment Isn’t Inevitable

There’s a widespread belief that a large share of abandonment is “just how eCommerce works.” Some of it is: people price-compare, get distracted, or decide to wait for a promotion.

But a measurable slice of cart abandonment has less to do with indecision and more to do with friction baked into the experience—friction that disproportionately impacts keyboard users, screen reader users, and customers relying on alternative inputs. When the flow requires guesswork, precision tapping, or visual-only cues, “abandonment” becomes the predictable outcome.

Where Testing Usually Falls Short

Inside most teams, checkout feels “fine.” You know the flow. You know where promo codes live and what the error messages mean. You’ve walked through the process so many times that the rough edges blur out.

At the same time, audits of major eCommerce sites consistently find accessibility issues in the checkout path. The disconnect often comes from how testing is done:
- Accessibility audits run only before big launches, if they run at all.
- Tools like Lighthouse or WAVE are considered complete coverage.
- Real users who rely on screen readers, keyboard navigation, or alternative inputs rarely test the flow end-to-end.
From the team’s perspective, nothing is obviously broken. From some customers’ perspectives, the experience dead-ends halfway through.

Once you’ve watched a handful of real users try to complete checkout with assistive tech, the abandonment rate stops feeling like a fixed “industry norm” and starts looking like something you can influence.

Where Accessibility and Conversion Intersect

Accessibility and conversion optimization are often treated as separate workstreams. In reality, they meet in the same details people rely on to get through checkout.

Reduce the number of steps, and everyone has less to track. Make labels clear and persistent, and people make fewer mistakes. Keep tab order logical and visible focus always present, so keyboard users stop getting lost. Structure your DOM so that screen readers get the same hierarchy and messaging that sighted users see, and recovery from errors becomes possible.

One Form, Two Experiences

Take a simple shipping form. If the ZIP/postal code field isn’t properly labeled for assistive tech, a screen reader user might just hear “edit, edit, edit” as they move through the field. They’re guessing which field is which.

Add a proper label, tie error text to the field with aria-describedby, and announce validation changes through an appropriate live region. Now that same user hears which field failed, why it failed, and what to do next.

The code changes are small. The impact on that person’s ability to finish checkout is huge. Scale that mindset across every step, and you’re not just “more accessible”—you’ve made the whole flow more predictable and less stressful for everyone.

The High Cost of Friction

Research into checkout behavior surfaces the same reasons people leave over and over: unexpected costs at the last second, long or confusing flows, technical errors, totals that aren’t clear until the end. On the surface, it looks like generic UX cleanup.

Underneath, many of those reasons connect directly to accessibility:
- Long, branching flows are especially hard for users with cognitive disabilities or attention challenges.
- Vague or visually isolated error messages fail everyone, and completely fail screen reader users if they’re not exposed programmatically.
- Totals buried below the fold or styled with low-contrast text are easy to miss for users with low vision or on small screens.
Turning the Funnel Into a Debugging Map

This is where cart abandonment stops being an abstract KPI and starts behaving like a debugging map. That sharp drop at step three isn’t just “leakage”—it’s a signal that something there is harder than it should be.

When you go into those high-friction spots and deliberately design for a wider range of people, you lower the barrier for everyone. Suddenly, more of the traffic you already paid for is able to finish the journey.

The Perception Gap Between Teams and Shoppers

From inside your organization, checkout likely feels straightforward. You’ve tested it on staging. You know the happy path. You know where the “Apply coupon” link is hiding and that the primary action is always that big button in the bottom corner.

How It Feels to Shoppers

For a new user—especially someone navigating with assistive tech—the same flow can feel very different.

In some cases, designers hide the coupon field behind a hover interaction that keyboard users never trigger. Elsewhere, a form error may appear as a small line of red text at the top of the page, with no announcement—leaving screen reader users unaware that anything went wrong. And sometimes, the “Place order” button is excluded from the tab order entirely, making it impossible to reach without a mouse.

Each of those decisions makes sense in isolation. Together, they add confusion. Enough confusion, and the easiest option is to abandon the attempt—and cart abandonment climbs again.

What You Learn From Watching Shopper Usage

Analytics will tell you where people drop. They won’t tell you that a missing focus state or an unannounced error was the last straw.

Sitting in on a session where someone uses a screen reader, keyboard-only navigation, or voice control to move through your checkout is often eye-opening. Suddenly, the rough edges you’ve learned to ignore become impossible to unsee. And you walk away with a clear list of fixes.

Building Accessible Checkouts That Convert

You don’t have to start over to make a meaningful difference. A practical first step is to stop treating accessibility and usability as separate reviews. Look at both at the same time, in the same flow.

Run the “Three Ways” Test

One simple sanity check: run your own checkout three ways—mouse, keyboard only, and with a screen reader (even if you’re not an expert user).

Pay attention to:
- Where focus jumps somewhere unexpected.
- Where you lose track of where you are in the flow.
- Where an error appears, but you’re not sure what went wrong or how to fix it.
Start by tightening the fundamentals: give every input a clear label in the DOM, tie error messages directly to the fields they describe, and announce important live updates—such as validation results—in ways assistive technologies can detect and communicate.

Simplify the Path

Then look at the flow itself. Are you asking for more information than you actually need? Is guest checkout hidden behind account creation? Are you spreading related decisions across too many screens?

Trimming unnecessary fields, making steps visible, and keeping the path short reduces cognitive load. Users feel less like they’re stepping into a maze and more like they’re following a clear route.

Don’t Neglect Mobile

On mobile, all of this matters even more. Check that buttons and tap targets are comfortably large and well spaced. Make sure essential actions aren’t clustered so tightly that users mis-tap under pressure. Confirm that autofill and voice input work as expected, given that your field markup is clean and consistent.

These are not cosmetic tweaks. They’re the kinds of changes that remove specific blockers and let more people finish their orders without fighting the interface.

Accessibility as a Conversion Strategy, Not Just Compliance

Moving Beyond “We Have To”

It’s easy for accessibility to get filed under “things we do to avoid legal risk.” In actual product work, it lines up directly with revenue.

Many eCommerce leaders now say they believe accessibility best practices help reduce cart abandonment and improve overall performance. That belief isn’t theoretical; it comes from what teams see after they ship meaningful changes: more successful checkouts, fewer “it wouldn’t let me pay” support tickets, and more customers coming back because the experience was smooth.

What It Signals to Customers

An accessible checkout also sends a quiet but powerful signal about your brand. When people can move through the experience without wrestling the interface—no matter how they navigate—they’re more likely to trust you with the next purchase, and the one after that.

Because your site and stack will keep evolving, accessibility shouldn’t be a one-off initiative. It belongs alongside performance, reliability, and UX as something you measure, tune, and revisit over time.

Closing the Gap Between Click and Confirm

More often than not, cart abandonment isn’t about disinterest. It’s about something getting in the way—a form that’s harder to use than it needs to be, an error that doesn’t quite make sense, a button that’s easy to miss.

Looking at checkout through an accessibility lens gives you a way to tune those rough spots. Small changes in form labels, error messages, and step-by-step navigation can make the experience easier and more predictable for users. When checkout feels straightforward and dependable, more shoppers are able to follow through on the intent they already had.

If you’re ready to understand how accessibility is shaping your own conversion funnel, scheduling an ADA briefing with 216digital is a great next step. Our team will help you surface the barriers that are costing you customers and outline realistic ways to turn them into a smoother, more inclusive checkout experience.
Greg McNeil

November 13, 2025

How-to Guides, Uncategorized

Accessibility testing, add to cart, checkout, ecommerce design, ecommerce website, How-to

Accessibility Statement Best Practices

Missing Accessibility Statement: User and Risk Impact

Boilerplate Accessibility Statement: Copy, Paste, Risk

Aspirational Accessibility Statement: Nice Words, Few Details

How to Write a Good Accessibility Statement

Purpose and Commitment

Standards and Guidelines (WCAG)

Testing Approach and Review Dates

Areas of Success

Areas Needing Improvement

Assistive Technology and Environments Tested

Contact Information and Support Process

Where to Place the Accessibility Statement Link

Common Accessibility Statement Mistakes

Overly Legal or Technical Language

Claims You Can’t Support

No Clear Feedback Path

Burying the Accessibility Statement

Make Your Accessibility Statement Match Reality

How ARIA Links Get Their Accessible Name

ARIA Link Patterns That Break Across Browsers

ARIA Links and aria-label on Visible Text

ARIA Links and aria-hidden Inside Links

ARIA Links With Split Text Spans

Cross-Browser Results for ARIA Links

Chrome and Edge

Firefox

Safari

Why ARIA Links Break in Reader Mode and Speech

What Broken ARIA Links Feel Like for Users

Safer Patterns for ARIA Links

Quick Tests for ARIA Links

Sanity-Check Your ARIA Links

Why VoiceOver Testing Catches Issues Automated Tools Miss

Set Up VoiceOver in Safari for Reliable Accessibility Testing

Turn VoiceOver On and Off Fast During Development

VoiceOver Commands for Web Testing You’ll Use Most

Use the VoiceOver Rotor to Check Headings, Links, and Landmarks

A Repeatable VoiceOver Workflow for Web Accessibility QA

High-Impact VoiceOver Checks for Forms, Menus, and Modals

VoiceOver Bug Notes That Lead to Faster Fixes

Make VoiceOver Checks Part of Your Release Routine

Accessible Form Validation Begins on the Server

Make the Form Hard to Misunderstand

Labels That Do Real Work

Group Related Inputs

Use the Platform

Don’t Hide Labels Casually

Write Error Messages That Move Someone Forward

Pick an Error Pattern That Matches the Form

Pattern A: Alert, Then Focus (Serial Fixing)

Pattern B: Summary at the Top (Errors on Top)

Pattern C: Inline Errors

Make Errors Machine-Readable: State, Relationships, Announcements

1) State: Mark Invalid Fields

2) Relationships: Connect Fields to Messages

3) Announcements: Form-Level Status

Use Client-Side Validation as a Precision Tool (Without Noise)

Define “Done” Like You Mean It

Bringing WCAG Error Patterns Into Your Production Forms

What Empty Buttons Are and Why They Matter

Common UI Patterns That Produce Empty Buttons

Buttons vs Links: Preventing Naming Failures

How Screen Readers Handle Empty Buttons

How to Find Empty Buttons Before Release

Automated Checks for Empty Buttons

Page-Level Spot Checks in Key UI Areas

Keyboard and Assistive Technology Checks

CMS and Plugin Sources of Empty Buttons

Fixing Empty Buttons With Accessible Labels

Adding Visible Text to Name Buttons

Providing Labels for Icon-Only Buttons

Using Screen-Reader-Only Text for Labels

Fixing Input Buttons Missing Values

Using Alt Text Correctly on Image Buttons

WCAG Requirements Related to Empty Buttons

How to Prevent Empty Buttons Long-Term

Setting Standards for Icon and Action Buttons

Adding Tests to Catch Unnamed Buttons Early

Reviewing CMS Output for Labeling Support