The automated pass checked 25 pages on bekee.com against WCAG 2.1 AA and found no automated violations. Mechanical checks (contrast, ARIA, structure, alt presence, label presence) all passed.
The AI judgment pass flagged 10 items across 7 of 25 pages (28%): heading, link purpose, page title. Each is a wording or clarity judgment, not an automated failure; confirm before acting.
The same destination href is reached by links with different visible text on different pages (and 3 more). Screen-reader users who navigate by label expect a consistent name for the same destination.
Suggested: Pick one label per destination and apply it everywhere. The clearest, most descriptive variant is usually the right choice; update the rest to match.
The h1 describes the author's tenure in the field but does not identify who this page is about or what the site is. A visitor encountering this heading out of context cannot tell whose site it is or what specific services are offered.
Suggested: bekee gibson: accessibility-serious WordPress development in Madison, WI
This h2 is a playful aside that does not clearly describe the section it introduces. A screen reader user scanning headings cannot tell this section covers side projects or ventures.
Suggested: Side projects and ventures
The link text 'Send a note' appears without any surrounding context that clarifies its destination. While it implies contact, it is vague enough that a screen-reader user scanning links would not know it leads to the contact page, especially since other links to the same destination use clearer labels.
Suggested: Send a note via the contact page
The heading 'Common questions' does not indicate what subject the questions are about. A screen-reader user scanning headings cannot tell whether the FAQ covers pricing, process, technology, or something else.
Suggested: Common questions about working with me
The heading 'The rest.' does not describe the content of the section that follows it. A user scanning headings cannot determine what topic or subject matter is covered.
Suggested: Use a heading that names the specific content, such as 'Background and experience' or 'More about Bekee Gibson'.
The heading 'The rule' is vague and does not describe which rule or what subject the section covers. A reader scanning headings cannot determine what the section is about without reading the surrounding content.
Suggested: Use a more specific heading such as 'The rule: design for the user's context' or 'Design where users actually are, not where you expect them to be'.
The heading 'The visible part.' is vague and does not describe the content of the section it introduces. Without reading the section, a user cannot determine what 'the visible part' refers to.
Suggested: Use a heading that names the specific subject, for example 'The visible audit results' or 'What the tool surfaced publicly'.
The heading 'The point.' is too generic to describe the section it introduces. It does not convey the topic or purpose of the content that follows.
Suggested: Use a heading that summarizes the takeaway, for example 'Why auditing your own tool matters' or 'The takeaway: accountability starts at home'.
The h1 heading uses a vague descriptor rather than naming the page or its subject. A portfolio page for a specific person benefits from a heading that identifies whose work is shown, so users who land mid-page or navigate by headings have clear orientation.
Suggested: "bekee gibson: Selected client work" or "Portfolio: Selected client work"
The page title correctly identifies this as a 404 error page and includes the site name, so it is functional. However, the format 'Page not found (404) - bekee gibson' uses a generic phrase as the primary identifier. This is a borderline case but the title does communicate the page's purpose clearly enough for AA conformance.
Suggested: 404 Not Found - bekee gibson
Submit the form with required fields left blank and confirm that required fields and any error states are indicated by more than color (asterisk, icon, label text, border thickness). Any color cue used must also meet contrast and must never be the only signal.
Accessibility is not a certificate you earn once and hang on the wall. It is a continuum. Sites change, content gets added, and the WCAG guidelines themselves keep evolving; a site that passes today needs another look as it grows.
This audit covers what automated and AI-assisted testing can evaluate, which is a meaningful share of the WCAG 2.1 AA criteria. It does not include testing with assistive technology by the people who depend on it, such as screen-reader users; that work takes specialized expertise and equipment beyond this engagement, and I will always tell you plainly where a site reaches the limit of what I can verify. No audit, from anyone, certifies a site as one hundred percent accessible. The honest goal is steady, measurable improvement.